THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


WORKING GROUP 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


PROCEDURES REVIEW
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working Group 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held in Naperville, Illinois on Oct. 


2, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES
 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 
 

2 

 6 

C O N T E N T S
 

Oct. 2, 2007 


OPENING REMARKS 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 11 


SUMMARY OF FIRST GROUP OF PROCEDURE REVIEWS 11 


SC&A’S REVIEW OF PROCEDURE 92 43 


ACTION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 63 


RESULTS OF NOON DISCUSSIONS 126 


MAJOR PROCEDURES LIST 160 


OTIB-0019 206 

OTIB-0017 215 

RECAP OF ACTION ITEMS 262 


FUTURE DATES AND MEETINGS 265 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 273 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- “^”/(inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies 


speaker failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 

 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS 


ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BRACKETT, LIZ, ORAU 


BRANCHE, CHRISTINE, NIOSH 


BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 


CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


FARVER, DOUG, SC&A 


FIX, JACK, ORAU 


GUIDO, JOE, ORAU 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 


SIEBERT, SCOTT, ORAU 


SMITH, MATTHEW, ORAU 


THOMAS, ELYSE, ORAU 


WINSLOW, ROB, ORAU 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

6 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

OCT. 2, 2007 


(10:00 a.m.) 


OPENING REMARKS


 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. This is a 


meeting of the work group reviewing 


procedures. This group is most ably chaired 


by Wanda Munn, members Gibson, Griffon, 


Ziemer, Presley an alternate. All members are 


in the room save for Mark Griffon, who we do 


expect. 


Might I ask if there are any other 


Board members on the telephone? Any other 


Board members connected by telephone? 


MR. GRIFFON (by Telephone): Lew, this is 


Mark Griffon. I’m online. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, Mark, welcome. 


Any other Board members save for Mark 


on the telephone? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: We do not have a quorum of the 


Board which is important. So we can conduct 


our business. 


Again, as mentioned, this is a member 


of the work group reviewing procedures. Let’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

do our normal introductions, and I’ll start by 


asking members of the NIOSH/ORAU team to 


identify themselves, members of the SC&A team 


to identify themselves, the federal employees 


who are working on this call, workers, worker 


reps, members of Congress or their reps and 


anyone else who would like to be identified. 


We’ll start in the room and do 


everyone in the room so you can get a sense of 


who’s here. And if you have difficulty 


hearing anyone, please shout out so we can do 


the appropriate adjustment of microphones. 


This is Lew Wade. I work for NIOSH 


and serve the Advisory Board. 


MS. MUNN: This is Wanda Munn. I chair this 


work group studying SC&A procedure reviews. I 


have no conflicts. 


MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson, Board member, I 


have no conflicts. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley, Board member, 


I have no conflicts. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Arjun Makhijani, SC&A, I 


have no conflicts. 


MR. FARVER: Doug Farver, SC&A. 


DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no conflicts. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus, I work 


for HHS, no conflicts. 


MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS, no 


conflicts. 


DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH, no conflicts. 


MR. SIEBERT: Scott Siebert, the ORAU team, 


no conflicts. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from 


NIOSH/OCAS, with respect to procedure review 


there are no conflicts. 


DR. ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer on the Board and 


member of the working group, no conflicts. 


 DR. WADE: And again, Dr. Lew Wade, so 


that’s all of us in the room. Let’s go out 


into telephone land and start with members of 


the NIOSH/ORAU team who are on the line. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Liz Brackett. 


 DR. WADE: I’m sorry, please again. 


MS. BRACKETT (by Telephone): Liz Brackett 


with the ORAU team. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Liz. 


MS. BURGOS (by Telephone): Zaida Burgos, 


NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Zaida. 


MS. THOMAS (by Telephone): This is Elyse 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

Thomas with the O-R-A-U team. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. 


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): Matthew Smith, 


ORAU team. 


MR. FIX (by Telephone): Jack Fix, ORAU 


team. 


MR. WINSLOW (by Telephone): Rob Winslow, 


ORAU team. 


 DR. WADE: Other members of the NIOSH/ORAU 


team? 


MS. CHANG (by Telephone): Chia-Chia Chang, 


NIOSH Director’s Office. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome, Chia-Chia. 


Other members of the NIOSH/ORAU team? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: How about SC&A? 


DR. OSTROW (by Telephone): Steve Ostrow. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): Bob 


Anigstein. 


MR. PETTINGILL* (by Telephone): Harry 


Pettingill. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Kathy Behling. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Hans Behling. 


 DR. WADE: Any other members of the SC&A 


team? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10

 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Other federal employees who are 


working on this call? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Anyone with us from the 


Department of Labor? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Probably traveling to our Board 


meeting. 


Workers, worker reps, petitioners, 


claimants, anyone who would like to be 


identified within that category? 


 (no response) 


DR. WADE: How about members of Congress or 


their representatives? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Anyone else who would like to be 


identified for the record on this call? 


MR. GUIDO (by Telephone): This is Joe Guido 


with ORAU. I just joined. 


 DR. WADE: Welcome. 


Anyone else who wants to be identified 


for the record on this call? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we’ve completed the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

introductions. Just a brief caution because 


we’ve been getting better on telephone 


etiquette. When you speak, speak into a 


handset. Always have the instrument muted 


when you’re not speaking, and be very mindful 


of background noises. Elevator music can be 


terribly distracting if you put us on hold, 


and we have to listen to that. In fact, some 


of the older members of our group will fall 


asleep if that happens. So please don’t let 


that happen. 


So, Wanda, it’s all yours. 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR
 

MS. MUNN: I’m working on the assumption 


that everyone here received my e-mail of the 


29th outlining what I hope that we would cover. 


And repeating our action item list from the 


last meeting that we held on August 29th . Is 


there anyone who does not have that 


information in hand? 


 (no response) 


SUMMARY OF FIRST GROUP OF PROCEDURE REVIEWS
 

MS. MUNN: If not, then we’ll proceed as I 


had indicated on the e-mail by first backing 


up and addressing the thing that we did not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

get very far on last time which is to say the 


summary of the set of procedure reviews from 


our first group. We had only started going 


through those and had really not completed 


where we were going to go. 


I’ve asked Kathy Behling if she would 


be good enough to take responsibility for 


leading us through where we are with that now 


and bring us up to date as we go through these 


item by item. Will anyone who has any problem 


with any of it or any additional information 


that Kathy’s not providing us please stop us, 


and we’ll go from there. 


Is that amenable to everyone here and 


to Kathy? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s fine 


with me, Wanda. 


 DR. WADE: Just a quick introduction. Dr. 


Christine Branche just joined us. Dr. Branche 


is the Principal Associate for NIOSH and is 


preparing to take over responsibilities of the 


Board. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Wanda, 


yesterday, I guess, and I again apologize for 


the delay in sending this out, I had sent 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

everyone in the working group or the work 


group a revised table. It’s actually Table 2 


that we revised, the document that I had sent 


you. And stop me if I’m repeating things, and 


I will repeat some of the things that we had 


talked about last time. 


Table 1 of the document that I sent 


yesterday which is a summary of the first set 


of the procedures reviewed, just to clarify 


what is on Table 1 and to break it down into 


what’s most important on this table, this 


table indicates on page one that there are 


five procedures that NIOSH has not reissued a 


revision to those procedures for which we 


still have outstanding findings. 


And we had discussed this during our 


last meeting so I’m just recapping. And this 


also indicates, in fact, on page two of Table 


1 that there are, and I have a little question 


mark there, but I think there are also five 


procedures that NIOSH has reissued either as a 


new procedure or as a revision that SC&A has 


not been asked to review. 


And if you want me to go through that 


list I can provide that list once again. But 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

you should see, and I’m referring to, on the 


second page, anything that has a no under SC&A 


reviewed revised document. There’s five no’s, 


and those are the procedures that we have not 


been asked to revisit. 


MS. MUNN: Hold on for just a moment and 


let’s make sure we’re all on the same page. 


These were the documents that you sent on the 


fourth, right? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This document 


is the one that I sent actually yesterday. 


It’s Table 1 and Table 2 that just summarizes 


the findings from the first set of procedures. 


And what I, actually, the revision that I sent 


you yesterday is only what was revised was 


Table 2 because I had not completed the very 


last column as to whether those issues were 


resolved or not. 


But I’m just recapping what is on 


Table 1 which gives you an overview of all of 


the procedures that have been reviewed. Those 


that still have outstanding findings where we 


have not addressed those findings either in 


Supplement 1 that we’ll be talking about today 


or in Supplement 3 which will be coming out 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

very shortly, in probably two weeks from SC&A. 


MS. MUNN: So the heading on your document 


is? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): The heading on 


the document is, it’s just two tables, and 


Table 1 is “Summary of First Set of Procedure 


Reviews”. 

MS. MUNN: All righty. 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Do you have 

that? 

MR. GRIFFON (by Telephone): And Kathy, the 

footer says submitted October 1st, 2007, 


correct? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Kathy, this is Arjun. Could 


you send it to me? I don’t think I was copied 


on it. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, I will do 


that. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): Bob 


Anigstein, same here. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay. 


And then just to move on, Table 2 is 


actually a listing of each one of the findings 


in which the resolution was that we were going 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

to address this issue in a revision to that 


document or in a replacement document. 


And I’ve identified each of the 


findings. I’ve given a description of that 


finding, and I discuss as to, was that finding 


addressed either in Supplement 1, as I’ve said 


which we’ll be reviewing today or be 


discussing today, or in the Supplement 3 in 


revised documents in Supplement 3 which SC&A 


will be publishing probably about the 15th of 


this month. 


And I’ve indicated whether that 


finding has been resolved in this revision or 


has not been resolved. If the finding has not 


been resolved, it will be incorporated into 


the matrix, the next matrix, associated with 


that particular document. So if you look 


under Table 2 here there are several findings 


that were not resolved under OCAS IG-001, 


several findings that have a no under the 


resolution. Those will become an item on the 


matrix under Supplement 3 when we start to 


review Supplement 3. 


So I’m trying to show you here that 


everything has been captured from the first 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

set of procedures, and we did try to ensure 


either through the Supplement 1 that we’ll 


review today or through Supplement 3 which 


will be coming out shortly that we have 


captured all of these findings. That 


summarizes everything. I didn’t know, I 


didn’t plan on going through each of the 


particular findings because we will be 


discussing them in detail when we actually 


start working on the matrix. 


MS. MUNN: Does anyone have any question 


about either the items that appear on the two 


documents or about what Kathy was just telling 


us? 


Yes, Paul. 


DR. ZIEMER: I have a question. This is 


Ziemer, Kathy. On the five items that SC&A 


has not been tasked to review, several of 


those have to do with the telephone 


interviews. I’m trying to recall whether we 


decided not to have them reviewed or we simply 


didn’t take action. Are they there by default 


or by intent? Maybe, Wanda, you can help me 


remember. The same on the other two. One is 


the conversion factor on TLD measurements, and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

the other one is on film badge conversion 


factors. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Actually, the 


three procedures associated with the interview 


process, on my list on Table 1 is PROC-4, 


PROC-5 and PROC-17. They have all been 


replaced with actually one procedure. I’m 


looking at this a little more closely now. 


And that is PROC-90. And we have not -- and 


Arjun, correct me if I’m wrong here -- but we 


have not been asked to review PROC-90 to the 


best of my knowledge. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I think there’s a different 


-- Stu and I might put our memories together 


about that. I think there was a little bit of 


a different resolution to that. I think that 


Stu said that it wasn’t substantially 


different than the three of them. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, the combination of 


the three procedures into the one interview 


procedure, there were no changes in that 


combination that addressed the items that came 


from the findings of the review of the three 


procedures. I think that combination was on 


the way before the policy was reviewed. So 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

there were no revisions made in that 


combination to address those issues. Now 


there’s recently been a product about a review 


of closed items which I guess is different. 


Now this is about the ^. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, so I remember the 


discussion when we went through the Task 3 


matrix number one, and you had assigned us the 


review of Procedure 90, and Stu made this 


comment. At that point I believe the review 


of Procedure 90 was suspended because it 


seemed to be duplicative of what had been 


done. So there are some items from the 


earlier review of the interview procedure that 


are not yet resolved. 


DR. ZIEMER: So maybe we need to carry that 


into the matrix under PROC-90 and show those 


items? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That would be appropriate 


because they’re still unresolved issues, and 


they would also apply to PROC-90, right, Stu? 


MR. HINNEFELD: My judgment was that I read 


PROC-90 or -92, whichever one it is, --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Ninety. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- that the changes or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

whatever changes had been made were not 


intended to address the findings from the 


original review of the three procedures, and 


so the finding, if you were to review that 


procedure today, you’d get the same finding. 


So I felt like, yeah, based on that. So that 


resolution I guess still has to occur in PROC90. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Right, I think Dr. Ziemer is 


on the right track. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We haven’t had our 


discussion about those findings either on the 


interview in the work group I don’t believe. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: We had some discussion and 

NIOSH --

MR. HINNEFELD: We had some, yes. 

DR. MAKHIJANI: -- you had responded. 

There’s actually a long history to it. There 


was pretty substantive discussion initially, 


and then it kind of fell away because we were 


doing other things. And so we haven’t 


actually revisited those, I believe, since you 


became chair of the committee, the working 


group. 


DR. ZIEMER: I’m just suggesting, and it may 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

be Kathy, maybe we need a different end column 


item here to make it clear that, this already 


says that it’s been replaced by PROC-90, but 


the previous review still holds I think is 


what we’re saying here rather than it’s not 


been reviewed. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Dr. Ziemer and Ms. 


Munn, what I might volunteer to do with Kathy 


is go over that matrix and just show those 


items, I think, and work with Stu to show 


those items which are outstanding and just 


indicate them as PROC-90. I haven’t actually 


read PROC-90. After Stu said it was the same 


I didn’t go back and actually read it. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don’t think, well, 


the things that were commented on in the 


original procedures review were not addressed. 


That was my judgment when I read the PROC. 


DR. ZIEMER: So the previous matrix items 


still hold under PROC-90? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: So you need them, I think 


you need them transferred. If you would like, 


we can do that. 


DR. ZIEMER: To the new matrix? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

MS. MUNN: Obviously, we need to capture 


them somewhere, and until we had this 


discussion, it certainly was not clear to me 


that we had outstanding items because of our 


lack of tracking on PROC-90. So, yes, we need 


to capture that in some way. 


DR. ZIEMER: And what I’m saying is in this 


last column where it says it hasn’t been 


reviewed, in essence, it has been reviewed. 


All you’ve done is put the three 


together. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I mean, there were 


some changes made, but other changes were 


made, but they were not made to address the 


findings in ^. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Let me ask a 


question here because I realize that we were 


given, I think it was PROC-92 and PROC-94 to 


review, and those are also interview 


procedures. But based on -- and again, this 


did become a little bit fuzzy -- I didn’t 


recall us being assigned PROC-90 for review. 


That’s why there is a no in the last column. 


But if I’m incorrect about that, if 


the Board has assigned us to review PROC-90, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

then that no is not appropriate. But I know 


we were asked to review PROC-92 and PROC-94 


which are also new interview procedures. But 


I did not recall that PROC-90 was part of, was 


a procedure that we’d been assigned in the 


Supplement 3. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Kathy, this is Bob Presley. 


If I remember, and I’ve slipped a time or two, 


when this was part of the old working group 


that Wanda and I and Mark were on, at that 


time, if I remember correctly, we said that 


this was going to be rolled into a new 


procedures review and would not be looked at 


until the new one came out. And at that time 


I think we set this aside and nobody’s done 


anything with it until PROC-90 if I remember 


correctly. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, if I recall -- this is 


Stu Hinnefeld -- if I recall part of the 


resolution here when we started our discussion 


of these findings, part of the suggestion was 


perhaps a listening in on one of these 


interviews, you know, monitoring an interview 


on the part of SC&A would illustrate some of 


the points that we were trying to make in our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

response. And that has occurred. I mean, 


there has been that listening in on, isn’t 


that part of it? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, I think we’re mixing 


up different procedures here. There are three 


interview procedures that we have reviewed. 


The first one dealt with the CATI interview. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s the one we’re talking 


about right now where the three old procedures 


for CATI interviews were rolled into PROC-90. 


That was done, that was completed. I don’t 


believe we ever made a request, at least we 


did not observe any CATI interview. We talked 


to many of the interviewers when we visited --


MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, that’s right --


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- when we visited NIOSH 


first, and then we visited the ORAU 


headquarters. And we went into the telephone 


interview, and we chatted with the 


interviewers to see how they were done. The 


thing that you’re referring to is the closeout interview procedure which is PROC-92, and 


we observed that. And that is now documented 


in the interview review that you just got. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

MS. MUNN: Correct, but which does not yet 


appear on any matrix. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Right. 


Then the third one, which is 


Procedure-97, which is the documentation of 


site experts and union, interviews with unions 


which relates to the WISPR database, that has 


been completed internally in SC&A. Kathy 


DeMers and I have completed it, but it’s still 


under internal review, and you haven’t seen 


it. 


DR. ZIEMER: Kathy, this is Ziemer again. I 


think you’re quite correct technically that we 


have not asked SC&A to review PROC-90. 


However, in essence, it’s been reviewed under 


the previous numbers, those three. Were they 


PROC-4, -5 --


MS. MUNN: And 17. 


DR. ZIEMER: -- yeah, under the previous 


numbers in essence, and so --


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s correct. 


However, if we don’t review PROC-90, where 


will we capture these outstanding findings? 


DR. ZIEMER: That was basically, I think, 


the question. Somehow we have to make sure 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

that we don’t drop that. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: What I can volunteer is 


maybe I’ll spend half an hour opening PROC-90 


and making sure that Stu and I agree on the 


characterization and then just send a, maybe 


John can send a memo out that it’s the same 


and carry over the findings. 


MS. MUNN: If you could do that then that 


could be one of the items that we bring to the 


Board during our telephone conference next 


month as an authority to review PROC-90 to 


make sure that those things are captured. 


That seems to be a logical way to approach it. 


DR. ZIEMER: It’s basically not re-reviewing 


it but simply making sure exactly the findings 


that are already there under the previous 


review that occurred. 


 MR. PRESLEY: But y’all are wanting to do 


that right now, aren’t you? 


DR. ZIEMER: We’re not going to do it at the 


table here. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Whatever the procedure of 


things are you have to go through. 


MS. MUNN: If we classify that as an action 


item to be addressed for us to discuss at the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

next telephone interview, we’ll have it 


squared away, right? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I think it should be 


able to be squared away in a couple of hours. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think so. And there has 


been some resolution ^. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, there was resolution on 

many findings. 

MR. HINNEFELD: There was why wasn’t there 

any acknowledgment? Well, we said, well, we 


acknowledge the fact that we’ll improve 


communication of some of this information. 


And that’s been distributed but ^ has been 


distributed. One of our resolutions was 


suggesting attending a CATI, and my 


recollection was that in addition to doing 


close-out interviews, there was actually a 


listening in on the CATI I believe. I mean, 


this goes back like two years. 


 MR. PRESLEY: It goes back further than that 


I think. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Obviously some revisiting of 


the record is necessary because --


MR. HINNEFELD: We proposed, I don’t know if 


it actually happened, we proposed that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28

 DR. WADE: The important thing is not to 


lose the finding. So what’s going to happen 


is that SC&A is going to look at PROC-90. If 


PROC-90 is indeed PROCs four, five and 17 


combined together with some editorial changes, 


they’ll report that back to the work group. 


And then we’ll start to carry into the matrix 


those findings. We can make a note that four, 


five and 17 are now combined in PROC-90. And 


then the work group will have its ability to 


track those items. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: And whatever has been 


resolved we can carry that over also to keep 


the record of whatever has been resolved. 


DR. MAURO: Mechanistically we will be 


getting to a summary report, the matrix that 


just came in for today’s meeting that will 


work its way into this, into the next revision 


of this. So mechanistically we’ll capture it 


in the matrix that we will be covering. I 


think that’s --


 DR. WADE: Don’t lose the coincidence of 90, 


four, five and 17, otherwise we’ll do this 


again. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I’ll take care of that, Dr. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

Wade. 


DR. ZIEMER: A follow-up question if I could 


on the other two which are OTIB-008 and OTIB010 which are the other two that Kathy 


mentioned. Both of those had outstanding 


findings in the old versions. My question is 


and now they’ve both been revised. Is it 


NIOSH’s contention that the revisions 


addressed the findings? It hasn’t been 


verified obviously but --


MR. HINNEFELD: It was our intent to address 


the findings. 


DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so somehow as we go 


forward these remain unresolved until we do 


the actual review of those two. Is that 


correct? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Correct. 


DR. ZIEMER: In other words NIOSH now says 


they have tried to address these outstanding 


findings in the new revisions. And until we 


actually review those, we don’t have 


confirmation and closure on those items. 


DR. MAURO: Well, the question I have is 


mechanistically we have a tracking machine 


that we’re building as we speak. That machine 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

has been, of course, originally the first 


matrix. And now we have another matrix that 


we’re talking about with the next set of 30 


which is the second set of 30. There will be 


a matrix that goes with the next set that’s 


going to be coming out in a week or so which 


will have 40 new reviews now --


DR. ZIEMER: We almost automatically have to 


look at the revisions in order to close out 


the matrix. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, so what I’m asking the 


working group is should we, as we march 


through this process, should we only have one 


matrix that is, that rolls and brings from 


behind everything to the current so that, see, 


right now one of the things I’m concerned 


about is that we have different matrices and 


that not everything is being tracked on a 


single matrix related to Task Order 3. 


And if we could have a single matrix 


that somehow we allow, for example, the OTIB810, the PROC-90, and anything else that 


carries over into the next set of reviews 


somehow gets captured in the latest matrix, 


otherwise we’re going to have too many 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

matrices. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Excuse me, 


John, I would recommend that we continue doing 


what we’re currently doing. What I’ve done 


here with the first set of procedures that we 


reviewed and that was identified in Table 2, 


I’ve looked at all of the findings that are 


still outstanding and need to be resolved in a 


revision. 


When we look at that revision, I put a 


table up front that is a little bit different 


than our checklist. We still include the 


checklist, but my first table identifies here 


are all the findings from the previous version 


of this procedure. So we are capturing 


everything. But to put everything into one 


matrix, ultimately it will roll out into one 


matrix when we’re done with it. But we have 


to keep separate matrices from my point of 


view for each published document we put out. 


The first set of procedures that we 


did we have a matrix for that. The second set 


of procedures, which is Supplement 1, which 


we’ll be discussing today, has a matrix. But 


that matrix is going to incorporate anything 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

that we have reviewed from the first set that 


was not resolved in a revision. So it gets 


carried over. Now when the Supplement 3 comes 


out, that will also have a separate matrix, 


and I think it’s very important to have a 


matrix with each separate published SC&A 


document. 


DR. MAURO: So mechanistically then, when we 


deliver our next product within a week or two 


from now which will have the next set of 40 or 


so procedures reviewed, that very same 


document will contain all of the history 


rolled up into it in some form, not 


necessarily into a single matrix, but there 


will be -- see, I’d like it in one place so 


that when we deliver our product that deals 


with Task 3, in that one volume it’s all 


there, and we don’t have to go back to 


previous products to sort of reconstruct what 


happened in the past. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): We won’t have 


to do that. When we submit our Supplement 3 


next week, we’re also going to submit a 


matrix. That matrix will include, in fact, if 


you go to page three of the document that I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

sent to you yesterday, my Table 2, the very 


first item on there is OCAS IG-001, External 


Implementation Guide. 


When I reviewed that implementation 


guide, the revision to it, I identified all 


the previous findings, and if there were any, 


which, in fact, there are several on page 


four, I believe, that are indicated a no, that 


that was not resolved in revision two of the 


IG-001, that will be captured on the 


Supplement 3 matrix. So everything’s been 


rolled up. And I think that’s the easiest way 


to do this, and it captures everything. 


Nothing’s falling through the cracks. 


MS. MUNN: There’s a great deal to be said 


for Kathy’s position. There’s one major 


concern from the Chair’s point of view, and I 


don’t know whether the other working group 


members have that same concern or not. One of 


the confusing things for me is the difference 


in the titles of the documents that we’re 


working on. If we had Table 1, Summary of the 


First Set of Procedures; Table 1, Summary of 


the Second Set of Procedures; Table 1, Summary 


of the Third Set of Procedures; it would be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

much clearer for me to be able to follow what 


we’re doing. 


It is confusing to go from Table 1, 


Summary of First Set, to a document entitled 


Summary of Task 3 Supplement One, Rev. 1, 


Procedure Finding Matrix. The titles 


themselves are less than clear. If we can’t 


re-impose upon SC&A to bring us a suggestion 


with respect to the titling of these documents 


that will make it simpler for us to be able to 


follow and understand exactly what we’re 


talking about. If we can identify Table 1, 


Summary of First Set; Table 1, Summary of the 


Second Set and the date, then we will always 


know which procedure we’re working. Is that 


amenable? 


DR. MAURO: Absolutely, in fact, that’s what 


we’re doing on our Task 4 work where we have 


the first set, the second set, the third set ­

-


DR. ZIEMER: And then you can do roll ups 


also. 


DR. MAURO: And no one gets confused. This 


one I agree. Calling it a supplement just --


MS. MUNN: Really confuses. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, and I 


agree also. In fact, we’ve talked in house 


about that, and our technical editor has also 


been critical of that. I guess initially when 


we did our first set of procedures, we didn’t 


realize that that was poor planning to make 


these Supplement 1, Supplement 2, and we’d be 


happy to change that. I agree. I agree. 


 DR. WADE: Possibly after lunch, John, if 


you could come back and tell us how it will 


be. I’d rather not wait for another meeting. 


This shouldn’t be a hard issue for you to 


resolve. So maybe after lunch, you can caucus 


if you need to and then say this is how the 


nomenclature will be henceforth, and then 


everyone can expect that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. Can I 


make a suggestion? If you start these things 


by procedure review, that way we can, we know 


what we’re looking at. And then you can say 


summary of first set, summary of second set 


and then ever how many tables. But if you got 


procedures review as the first part of the 


title, then we can go to that and pull it up 


and see. That’d help me. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, very 


good. 


MS. MUNN: There’s one other request with 


respect to considering titling and how we 


approach these. The roll up would be very 


helpful if it dropped off things that had been 


resolved and retained only the outstanding 


issues that we have not yet addressed. That 


way we do not have page after page of items 


which we have, in fact, closed but are keeping 


on the record as an item that has been 


addressed. 


Historically we would retain what we 


already have showing completed, but on the 


roll up that we continue to work with on a 


continuing basis, we would retain only 


outstanding items. Does that make sense? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): I agree. 


That’s fine. 


MS. MUNN: All right, that’s good. 


DR. ZIEMER: You might want to distinguish 


between a working roll up and an archive of 


everything that’s been resolved. So again, 


that’s in titling and --


DR. MAURO: Let’s talk a little bit more 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

about that. Every procedure has a history, 


and at some point in that history it ends. 


Having the record and knowing where that 


record is of the history of what transpired 


has value. 


MS. MUNN: Absolutely. 


DR. MAURO: Now that would, now under your 


protocol the last matrix that we are working 


with would not have that history. In order to 


capture that history or to resurrect it, we 


would have to go back to historical documents 


that we are no longer working with, and that 


could end up being -- in other words, I could 


see the day coming when someone would want to 


hear the story of PROC-92 and how it was 


eventually closed out and what process went 


through the decision making which could have 


great value. But it won’t be captured in the 


latest matrix. 


MS. MUNN: But if we have two roll ups, one 


which shows the documents that have been 


reviewed and resolved, all issues resolved and 


the date of the resolution, then anyone who 


wants to research it can start from that date 


of resolution and work back through minutes to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

identify what has transpired with respect to 


that particular document. 


DR. MAURO: So let me see if I’ve got this 


right and see what happens. So we have two 


tracking systems, one is to track the active 


procedures that are actively undergoing 


closure, and one is to track those that have 


been closed so anyone who wants to resurrect 


the history can do that. 


MS. MUNN: Correct, and if we put the 


resolution date, the final resolution date for 


that particular document, then anyone who 


wants to can follow backward. 


 DR. WADE: John, if you could add that to 


the nomenclature, after lunch. I think Dr. 


Ziemer’s word of an archived version and then 


a working version so now those are the two 


things that we have. One an archive version 


where we don’t lose anything. But then when 


the work group comes and sits it needs to know 


what’s in front of it for that meeting without 


having to sift through 47 pages. So if you 


could think about that. 


DR. ZIEMER: Also knowing which ones have 


been looked at so we’re not repeating. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39

 DR. WADE: If you could bring us 


nomenclature. 


DR. BRANCHE: If I can ask, this is 


Christine Branche. There’s the issue of 


nomenclature but also the template. It 


doesn’t mean that necessarily you have to have 


an example of your template after lunch, but 


if you could forward something relatively soon 


because I think in the documentation I would 


suggest that there be difference in fonts that 


would distinguish those from ongoing cases, I 


think that would help facilitate. 


MS. MUNN: An item for the Board’s telephone 


conference. Agreed? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Agreed. 


 DR. WADE: What’s an item for the Board’s 


telephone conference that Christine just 


mentioned? 

MS. MUNN: The template. 

 DR. WADE: I’d like to get the nomenclature 

set today. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, we’ll try to do that. If 

that means extending lunch a little bit, we 


can always find a way to extend lunch. 


Anything else on this particular 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

topic? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: Kathy, thank you so much. We 


really appreciate it. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, I hope I 


didn’t confuse things. We’re trying to 


resolve all of this and make changes to our 


titles for our documents. 


 DR. WADE: Out of confusion comes clarity, 


so you helped us. 


MS. MUNN: As long as I can identify, as 


long as any of us can identify which set of 


reports we’re working from, then we’re just 


fine. And I think our effort to do something 


with the titles and how we actually set these 


things apart will resolve that for us 


hopefully yet today. Thank you so much. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): You’re welcome. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld. 


While we’re on this I’d just offer that three 


of the five documents have not yet been 


revised are imminent. I mean they’ve been 


revised. They’ve been through internal 


review. They essentially just need signature 


for the revision to be done. That’s three 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

OCAS TIBs, five, seven and eight. Are those 


the numbers? Yeah, five, seven and eight, 


OCAS TIBs five, seven and eight, the review 


will be signed any day now. The revision will 


be signed any day. 


MS. MUNN: That’s good. If we have any 


possibility at all of another face-to-face 


meeting of this group which is in my opinion 


likely prior to the January meeting, hopefully 


early in December I think, then we will take 


those particular items under review at that 


time. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I’m sorry, six, seven and 


eight. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy, 


just one question. You said five, seven and 


eight. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I was wrong. I was 


wrong, six, seven and eight. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay, because I 


was going to ask about six. Then I’m good. 


MS. MUNN: All right, very good. 


DR. MAURO: Before we close this, just again 


in terms of marching orders for SC&A, sounds 


like at the next Procedure working group 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

meeting, at this meeting we will resolve 


nomenclature, format, template-related issues 


perhaps after lunch for this archive versus 


active. Also, we will also move forward on 


proper titles for the different procedure 


deliverables, the Supplement 1, Supplement 2, 


Supplement 3 concept is going to be replaced 


by a better title. That means moving forward 


at the next working group meeting, all of our 


work products, whether they be matrices or 


reports, will reflect the changes we’re 


talking about. So that’s, I guess, the 


marching order for SC&A. I just want to make 


sure it’s ^. 


 DR. WADE: We appreciate your tasking 


yourself. We’ve come to expect it. 


For the record we have a Board call on 


the 6th of December, just for the record. 


MS. MUNN: And sometime in or around that 


same time this group probably will need to 


meet because if we get later into December, 


we’re going to run into holiday problems. And 


we want to have this particular part of our 


job cleaned up before the January face-to-face 


meeting if we can in Las Vegas. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

SC&A’S REVIEW OF PROCEDURE 92
 

Next item of business because it 


touches a little bit on what we have already 


been discussing here relative to Procedures 90 


and 92, as all of you here know, SC&A has 


released their review of Procedure 92, has a 


number of findings on it. This is a 


significant procedure, and the findings are 


themselves significant. 


NIOSH clearly has not had an 


opportunity to react to any of those findings. 


And as a result, although there’s been several 


requests and inquiries as to whether or not we 


are going to address that today, it’s the 


Chair’s feeling that it would be premature of 


us to address that given that the Agency has 


not had review time. That needs to occur 


prior to any action and any extensive 


discussion here. 


I’d like to get a feel from NIOSH as 


to what their expectation is with respect to 


response to those particular findings. I was 


advised in a sidebar conversation that this 


procedure was at one time on our list of to be 


reviewed and came off of it which explains its 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

lack of appearance on the current matrix. But 


the assumption is that it will then appear on 


forthcoming matrices. That being the case 


we’re back to the question of what’s a 


reasonable time for NIOSH to have some 


response to those findings for us. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I conveyed the 


document over to ORAU who actually performs 


the close-out interviews and asked them to, 


because of the nature of the findings and the 


nature of this process which is the direct 


interaction with the claimants. I wanted to 


make sure you had a careful and thoughtful, 


you know, read these things with an open mind 


and what can we take from this that we can 


adopt. It’s not 100 percent sure that we can 


adopt everything that’s suggested. And a 


clear statement of compensability of a claim 


is not something we can do. That’s not our 


decision to make. That’s the Department of 


Labor’s decision to make. So there are some, 


but we intend to seriously evaluate what can 


we take from this and provide responses. And 


I think by about the end of the month is when 


I asked ORAU to provide the reaction. You 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

know, what’s the reaction to these findings, 


these issues. So with our another couple 


weeks after that we would probably be able to 


discuss in some form I would think because 


once we get their initial response, then we 


have to evaluate that as well. 


MS. MUNN: So is it reasonable for us to 


assume that at our next face-to-face meeting 


which we expect to hold between now and 


January of 2008. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that was my 


expectation was that there would be another 


face-to-face meeting approximately midway 


between now and the next meeting. So when I 


said was, what I’m trying to do is get things 


that can be addressed at that meeting lined up 


so that we’re prepared to talk about them. 


And this would be one of those items. 


MS. MUNN: Fine. Is that agreeable with 


everyone here? 


 DR. WADE: Still a little bit more 


specificity on time. So you’re saying the end 


of October. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I’m saying the end of 


October for ORAU to deliver product to us. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

I’m saying more like mid-November before we, 


OCAS, would be prepared to discuss. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, but what you’re prepared to 


discuss we have to give our colleagues an 


opportunity to have reviewed and be prepared 


to react. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 DR. WADE: So if you were to say mid-


November NIOSH’s comments appear. They go to 


the work group and SC&A. Then the work group 


and SC&A would be prepared to engage in 


meaningful dialogue, beginning of December? 


MS. MUNN: Hopefully. 


DR. MAURO: SC&A, yes. 


 DR. WADE: So that’s a plan. So that takes 


us back to that early December opportunity for 


the next face-to-face. But then the 


commitment is NIOSH by mid-November. The work 


group and SC&A with NIOSH at a work group 


meeting early December. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Will there be a matrix 


prepared for that report? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: We could do so. I mean, 


there are not many findings, but we --


MR. HINNEFELD: I know there are a handful 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47 

of findings. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- could put it in the form 


of a matrix. 


 DR. WADE: It’s good to maintain the 


continuity. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, the choice becomes we can 


make that matrix part of the overarching 


matrices that we’re using to manage Task 3, or 


we can have that as a special one similar to 


the way we dealt specially with OTIB-052. 


There was construction. That one had its own 


special treatment because of its importance. 


We could treat this one as a special one with 


its own matrix. It’ll be a relatively brief 


matrix. I think the number of findings are 


limited, but whatever the preference is of the 


working group, separate matrix or incorporate 


it into the next overarching matrix. 


MS. MUNN: I’m open to suggestion. 


 DR. WADE: When will we see the next 


overarching matrix? 


DR. MAURO: Well, I guess the next 


overarching matrix will be part and parcel of 


the next deliverable which will be in two 


weeks. We will be delivering that third set 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

of procedure reviews which is the name we will 


call it as opposed to Supplement 3, in two 


weeks, less than two weeks. It will include 


as an attachment a matrix of our findings for 


the ^. In fact, our plan, our mode of action 


in the future is going to be to include 


matrices in all our deliverables right up 


front rather than wait. And in that very same 


matrix I guess we can accommodate this 


particular OTIB-052, I’m sorry, PROC-92, or 


have it separate. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: One little wrinkle is that 


the Procedure 92 review is not that big. 


DR. MAURO: That’s true. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: ^ that you’re going to get. 


And I think if you want it more rapidly, it’s 


very straightforward. I didn’t do it because 


I haven’t been asked to do it. I consulted 


with John about that. He said don’t do until 


the working group asks you. But I could do it 


on relatively short order and send it out to 


you. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, Arjun makes a very good 


point. It turns out PROC-92 --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Before the end of this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

meeting. I can just sit on the side. 


DR. ZIEMER: I believe there were four 


findings in this, right? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, and one of them had 


some subheadings. 


DR. ZIEMER: It seems to me we could have a 


working matrix for this and merge it into the 


main matrix at some point. Otherwise, why 


separate it out although I might tell you, 


and, Wanda, I got a phone call from a court 


reporter here, a news reporter, on this one. 


I think you may have also. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, I did. I played telephone 


tag with him. 


DR. ZIEMER: This one is already in the 


spotlight in the media -- and you got a call, 


too. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I got a call, too. 


DR. ZIEMER: I think it was Rocky Mountain 


News. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, it was this Laura Franks; 


she called me. 


DR. ZIEMER: And called about it asking 


which work group was going to review it. I 


told Laura that it was a procedure, and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

therefore, would come to this committee, but 


as far as I was concerned at that time unless 


the Board wanted to look at this separately, 


but I think it is a procedure, and it’s 


appropriately being reviewed here. 


But I think she’s going to be tracking 


the outcome which tells you that this 


particular procedure has a level of broader 


interest amongst our constituents than many of 


the procedures do because it speaks to the 


interface between NIOSH and the Board and the 


claimants, and that’s where the rubber meets 


the road. So I think a careful review of this 


is important and maybe a working matrix so we 


make sure we address those issues and not wait 


for the bigger bulk of everything else. In my 


opinion that’s, I don’t know how the others 


feel about it. 


MS. MUNN: I think you’re absolutely 


correct, Paul, and when I received the first 


telephone call from Ms. Franks about this I 


was newly back from vacation, had not looked 


at what I had on my file and had no idea what 


she was talking about and told her I wasn’t 


planning on looking at anything like that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

Then I realized after I had seen my 


material what the issue was and had tried to 


relay to her that we would address it but not 


in depth this time simply because it had not 


had an opportunity to be properly vetted and 


would not be so for several weeks. So, yes, I 


do feel unless there is strong evidence to the 


contrary that perhaps a differentiated matrix 


like we did with 52 would be in order here. 


Especially now that we have identified our 


expectation of having an archive that we can 


incorporate these issues into once they’re 


done. 


It’s always been some concern for me 


that when we do separate matrices for any of 


our documents, they may not get incorporated 


in any master document. 


 DR. WADE: So here’s where we stand. For 


the record SC&A has completed its review of 


PROC-92. SC&A is going to prepare a working 


matrix of findings and share it with the Board 


and NIOSH this week. NIOSH will prepare its 


reaction and comments back to the SC&A review 


and matrix items by mid-November sharing them 


with the Board and SC&A, an anticipated face­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

to-face working group meeting in early 


December. 


MS. MUNN: Agree? 


 DR. WADE: At some appropriate clime. 


MR. GRIFFON (by Telephone): Wanda, this is 

Mark. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, Mark. 

MR. GRIFFON (by Telephone): Just one 

comment, I agree with everything that was 


said. I wonder, there was the recommendation 


in this report for the Board to re-interview 


these individuals that were subjects of the 


SC&A review. And I know that’s been a topic 


of Board discussion in the past, and I wonder 


if we might bring that discussion back to the 


Board meeting this time to get ahead of the 


game to see, you know, can we do that? I’m 


sure Legal has an opinion. I just wonder, you 


know, everything else I think I agree. We 


should wait until NIOSH has a chance to 


respond, but maybe we want to get ahead of the 


game on at least a discussion of can we, you 


know, it might be another discussion whether 


we choose to, but can we do that and are there 


legal hurdles to go through or over or to work 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

with NIOSH on? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, Paul. 


DR. ZIEMER: Mark, we have legal counsel 


with us today. They may not be in a position 


to make a determination, but at least they 


hear the question, and I would think perhaps 


at the Board meeting we can raise the issue 


and maybe ask Legal to look into it. But I’m 


not sure we need an answer today, but at least 


you’re suggesting that they at least begin to 


look at this I think, right? 


MR. GRIFFON (by Telephone): That’s what I’m 


asking that we all just consider discussing it 


later this week, yes. 


DR. ZIEMER: There’s Liz. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I was just going to say 


we’ve taken note of your request and we’ll 


work with Lew Wade to get a determination, but 


it won’t be at this meeting. 


 DR. WADE: Perfect. Do you understand 


everything you need to understand, Liz, to 


undertake the developing --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: The Board wants to 


consider speaking with people that have been 


interviewed by SC&A. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

DR. ZIEMER: There’s a recommendation in 


here that I think Mark is asking can the 


Board, if the Board agreed with it, could they 


legally do it. 


 DR. WADE: Let’s put the recommendation on 


the table so that --


DR. MAKHIJANI: I just want to clarify 


what’s in the report. There were two 


claimants who had given substantive 


information during the close-out interview. 


And SC&A thought that it might be useful if 


the Board directly or through its working 


group or however you decided might interview 


those two people. As I understand it their 


claims have been, part of these claims have 


been completed and the paperwork is done at 


the Department of Labor and so on. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t know the status of ­

-

DR. MAKHIJANI: I believe -- I did check 

that, and it’s my understanding -- I haven’t 


checked it recently -- but --


MS. HOWELL: Arjun, when you say substantive 


information do you mean new information on 


their claim? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 -- 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

DR. MAKHIJANI: During the close-out 


interview? Yes. 


MS. HOWELL: I have read the document, but 


I’m just trying to make sure that I 


understand. I want to frame what it is you’re 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, I don’t know what I’m 


allowed to -- yes. 


MS. HOWELL: We can talk about it later. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, I think I’d like to 


give you that information offline. There was 


substantive information in relation to the 


dose reconstruction that we talked about. 


 DR. WADE: But the Board’s or the work 


group’s discussion with these people would not 


be about collecting that information and 


providing it to the process. It would be 


about the Board’s review of Procedure 92. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Wade, yes, our comments 


were not about the dose reconstruction. It 


was merely because the close-out interview, 


part of the purpose is to make sure that if 


there’s any new information that’s provided, 


that that should be considered by NIOSH before 


the final dose reconstruction is done. And 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

there was some kind of gap, we felt, in 


between the interview, the information that 


was provided and that full consideration had 


needed to be done. That’s why it sort of 


became an important point of the report. As 


the report said that we didn’t feel that was 


fully considered. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: So why don’t you clarify 


for me now that Arjun has said that, exactly 


what the Board would like to do? Because now 


I’m a little bit confused. 


 DR. WADE: Do you want me to do that or 


would you, I mean, I can attempt to do that. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I don’t know if the Chair 


would like to do that? 


MS. MUNN: I believe what I heard is first 


of all we will not get a legal opinion on 


whether re-interviewing these people is 


possible at this meeting. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, you will not --


MS. MUNN: We will not. 


Second, is my understanding that we 


are being asked if a re-interview, a second 


re-interview, now of some of these people is 


possible, and if so, by whom with respect to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

this alleged additional information that’s out 


there. 


MS. HOWELL: I’m sorry to interrupt. Would 


the Board, so the Board is questioning whether 


the re-interview should be by SC&A or NIOSH? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Or by the Board? So the 


Board wants to re-interview people to gather 


substantive information for a dose 


reconstruction? 


DR. ZIEMER: We cannot speak for the Board 


here. 


MS. MUNN: No, we can’t. 


DR. ZIEMER: Mark has raised this question 


and suggested that we bring it up at the Board 


meeting, and I was simply trying to confirm 


that you had heard what Mark’s question was, 


and it had to do with the legality of the 


Board being involved in a re-interview 


process. Whether the Board wants to do that 


has not been determined, and I think the Board 


has to make that determination, not this work 


group. We can recommend something, but I --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: So are you only 


recommending that you actually do the 


interview or you listen to an interview? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58

 DR. WADE: I think there’s a nuance here 


that has to be made very clear. This is not 


about gathering information for the purpose of 


dose reconstruction or an appeal to dose 


reconstruction. It is not that. What this is 


is learning from people who have been through 


the process about the process. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: So you wouldn’t actually 


be asking for the substantive information. 


What you would be saying is do you as a 


petitioner feel like your information was 


addressed, that kind of question. 


 DR. WADE: Correct, because if we ask you 


the first question, we know the answer’s going 


to be no. So to explore the possibility of 


the Board learning about these people’s 


experience with the process that they’re 


reviewing, there’s a possibility --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, that’s very different 


from gathering substantive information. 


 DR. WADE: -- the question is tell me about 


your new information. I want to see if your 


dose reconstruction was done correctly. The 


answer to that I’m sure will be no. Right, 


Arjun? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s correct. I think, 


Dr. Wade, you have the ^. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: And if the Board, as Dr. 


Ziemer said, wants to re-address that later. 


 DR. WADE: But this is about a review of a 


procedure and talking to people who’ve 


experienced the use of the procedure for the 


purpose of commenting upon the efficacy of the 


procedure. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: And the whole point of the 


comment, and it states in the report 


explicitly just so there wouldn’t be any 


confusion, that wasn’t a comment on the dose 


reconstruction itself, whether it was right or 


wrong or whatever. But it was a comment on 


how the information provided was handled. 


 DR. WADE: Consistent or not consistent with 


the procedure. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s right. 


 DR. WADE: I think you understand that was 


the question. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I do understand that. 


 DR. WADE: The Board can decide whether it 


wants to really ask you to consider this when 


the Board meets, but it’s very important we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

distinguish between the business of dose 


reconstruction and the business of reviewing 


procedures. 


MS. MUNN: I need to be very sure that the 


Board Chair has clearly, in his mind, what the 


question’s going to be that’s placed before 


the Board because I’m uncertain what the 


recommendation of this group needs to be with 


respect to the larger Board meeting on 


Thursday when we report. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, first of all, I think 


Mark as an individual Board member will 


probably want to raise the issue. We should 


recognize that this report just came out. I 


saw it for the first time after the reporter 


called me. I had been on travel also, and 


when she called and wondered what we were 


going to do with this report, I said give me 


the title of the report and the number. I 


hadn’t, and I told her I had not even read the 


report yet. 


And I don’t know how many Board 


members will have seen it and be prepared to 


even make a determination at the meeting on 


what they think we should do. I think the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

only thing we will have is the question that 


Mark has raised, can you be thinking about if 


the Board in the future accepts the 


recommendation, and not everyone will have 


even read it, and I don’t think we want to dig 


into the report in detail, but should that 


occur, and you can read what the 


recommendations are and give us an opinion. 


That’s what’s going to happen I think. 


I don’t think we should discuss the 


report in any detail having it just come to 


most members within the week or so. And it’s 


a pretty detailed report and amongst a lot of 


other things that we have like an extensive 


Hanford report very recently. 


MS. MUNN: It would not be productive for us 


to spend Board time discussing this in my 


view. 


DR. ZIEMER: So I think the only thing we 


can do is point out that we have the report, 


the matrix is being developed. There is a 


recommendation that will raise this issue and 


let Mark raise it. 


MS. MUNN: Mark, are you --


MR. GRIFFON (by Telephone): Yeah, my only 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

point was, and just as Lew had put, my only 


point was to say it is not that we accept the 


recommendation from the report. We’re still 


reviewing that. But assuming that we do, is 


this a viable option for the Board to pursue? 


Are we allowed to re-interview these people 


with -- and I think Lew’s words are very well 


put, looking at the effectiveness of the 


procedure and the interview process not to 


gain more information about the particular DR 


in question but to look at the effectiveness 


of the procedure. 


MS. MUNN: Mark, since you are likely going 


to be the person who will bring this up, would 


you do us the good service of during our 


copiously free time over lunch, would you put 


together the exact words that you anticipate 


using so that it will be crystal clear for all 


of us this afternoon before we go away exactly 


what you expect to say on Thursday when this 


issue is raised? Could you do that? 


MR. GRIFFON (by Telephone): Sure. 


MS. MUNN: It would be very helpful. Thank 


you so much. And I won’t worry about what the 


real issue is. You’re going to formulate it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

for us specifically. 


ACTION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
 

Now let’s move on to our action items 


from our previous meeting. We can address 


this in one of two ways. Either we can start 


with the matrix and try to check off these 


action items as we go along, or we can ask our 


NIOSH folks if they want to go down the action 


item list and check off those as we go. Which 


would you prefer, gentlemen? It’s up to you. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Up to us? 


MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, are you talking about 


your action item list in your e-mail? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, it’s the same one that we 


put together --


MR. HINNEFELD: I think we can start through 


these. 


MS. MUNN: If you would like to do that, 


then please do. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, we need a matrix before 


us that associate with this? 


MS. MUNN: Perhaps it would be a good idea 


for you to have the matrix. 


DR. ZIEMER: Which dated matrix is it? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

MS. MUNN: It says Summary of Task 3, 


Supplement 1, Rev. 1 Procedure Findings 


Matrix. And at the bottom right-hand corner 


it says revised draft September 25, 2007, in 


red. Stu sent that to us last week. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, okay, speaking from 


the action item list in the first action there 


under NIOSH’s reconsider the content of OTIB020. It says more detailed guidance in the ^ 


which I believe is the coworker, the general 


coworker approach document. Is that correct? 


OTIB-020? 


MS. MUNN: Page five I believe. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We’ve added some additional 


information to the matrix in red. It’s at the 


top of what looks to be page --


MS. MUNN: Page six. 


MR. HINNEFELD: -- six that describes some 


of the difficulty in developing the standard 


set of language in OTIB-020 to discuss 


acceptability of dataset. I believe the 


finding gets to the, how do you determine if 


the coworker dataset that we’re using in a 


coworker approach is a good, quote, good set 


of data? I believe that’s what we were asked 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

to address. And is there a way to include the 


criteria that we use when deciding the dataset 


is good enough for coworker; is there a way to 


include that time period in OTIB-020? 


And so our initial take on that is 


because of the kinds, you know, the types of 


data formats you’re going to see in coworker 


datasets, it’s a little hard to determine 


ahead of time what might be an acceptable test 


to do that. That’s kind of what we talked 


about at the last meeting. 


In subsequent conversations with at 


least one member of the ORAU team, well, if we 


have kind of the same thing, we use kind of 


the same thing each time which is we try to 


match the dataset, the data in the dataset, to 


the data we received for that claimant in the 


response to see if those pieces of data ^. 


In other words, if the coworker 


dataset has personal identifiers, which we try 


to get. It’s based on personal identifiers. 


Does the data in the coworker dataset for that 


individual match what the Department of Energy 


sent to us when we asked for that person’s 


exposure history. So that’s the kind of test 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

that’s done. 


And then there’s a sampling that’s 


done based on the size of the data. We don’t 


check every person. A sample that’s selected 


and the test is run to see if you get a 


readable match on the data DOE reports versus 


the coworker data. 


So that is a test that’s pretty 


consistently used on these coworker datasets. 


But it may not be all, and it may not be 


sufficient to really describe everything in 


the case. So it just seems like, you know, 


upon thinking about this, we don’t ask, why 


don’t you and ORAU go think about this. What 


could you do? Is there some language you 


could put in there? That’s essentially what 


we were asked to do. 


And so we thought about it, and I 


asked the people who know what they’re doing, 


we talked about one of them, and they came up 


with that potential thing. But really they 


said I don’t know how comprehensive that’s 


going to be to put something like in there. 


It seems like that may be something you can 


say there, but it doesn’t really add anything 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

because each of the specific coworker dataset 


procedures is supposed to describe what was 


done to decide if this was an okay dataset to 


use and for what years. 


DR. MAURO: Let me add a little to that, 


and, Hans, can certainly add more. Hans was 


the original author. But it comes down to, 


the procedure itself says, well, listen, you 


have a worker, and you’re going to make a 


determination based on all the information you 


have regarding him whether you’re going to 


assign to him an ambient dose, in other words, 


this person really wasn’t exposed. The only 


exposure he might have received could have 


been from an ambient environmental dose. 


Or this worker may have gotten some 


exposure so therefore, we’re going to assign 


to him a 50 percentile value out of the 


coworker model. Or here’s a worker that he 


got exposed, but he wasn’t monitored and 


probably should have been monitored, and we’re 


going to assign to him the 95th percentile 


value in the distribution of the coworker 


model. 


And I guess our concern in its 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

simplest form is that, gee, there’s an awful 


lot of judgment that has to be made across 


that distribution. And it wasn’t apparent 


that that a judgment could be made in a 


consistent manner based on the procedure. Now 


certainly, and I guess it sounds like that you 


do have a process. And when we read the 


procedure we felt that there was an awful lot 


of room for personal judgment that could 


result in inconsistent application of that 


decision making. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think certainly from 


OTIB-020 it would be because the site 


specificity of the information that you would 


use to make that judgment, there is site 


specificity because an important part of the 


information is job title. 


Based on a person’s job title you can 


make some judgment about a person who got 


exposed. If they are a secretary to the 


president, for instance, that person’s 


probably not exposed. Whereas, if they were a 


chemical operator, why, if you happen to find 


one that’s not monitored, that person would be 


exposed. So but those job titles are not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

universal. You know, each site will have its 


own set of job titles, and so you have to make 


those decisions based on that site. 


So again, I may only be postponing the 


argument here, but it would seem like a site 


specific coworker TIB because, you know, this 


is a general one. A site specific one to the 


extent that specific information can be 


provided, that would be the place. And even 


then how specific can it be? 


I’m not a hundred percent sure I could 


sit here and say, yes, by gosh, you could read 


this, and you’ll know whether it’s a guy 


that’s a 50 percent or a 95th percenter. I’m 


not so sure I could promise that. But I think 


to the extent that any additional specific 


information were provided, it would have to be 


in the site specific one because it’s just, in 


that instance you just can’t in a general 


procedure say much about it because the 


terminology is too different from site to 


site. 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. You’d 


have to have the location a person was working 


onsite, too. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

MR. HINNEFELD: Sure, and in various sites 


you have varying degrees of quality of 


information of where did the person work. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: At certain sites a 


particular job title could have worked all 


over the place. At other places you have 


enough information you know that he didn’t. 


So I mean it’s very specific to the 


information you can learn about a site or make 


those judgments. 


DR. MAURO: I don’t recall whether this 


also, this was universal in terms of applying 


to construction workers also or whether this 


was limited to Operations folks. Because 


somehow the OTIB-052 falls in here, too. So 


we’ve got this hierarchy, you know. This is 


like an overarching philosophy which in 


principle, if you have complete information, 


the philosophy is sound. But you don’t always 


have complete information. 


Then underneath that, subsumed within 


that is the site specific coworker model, and 


but you say, then you sort of back, in using 


that philosophy, you move into the site 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

specific and see if you could implement that 


philosophy in a reasonable way. And then 


nested underneath that is OTIB-052 which deals 


with construction workers. 


Now that we have this hierarchy, now 


we’re going to try to try to apply this to 


construction workers where you have other 


adjustment factors. So you have built this 


pyramid, and I guess the process, which is 


quite sophisticated, does require at each step 


in the process these judgments to be made. 


And I guess that’s the essence of --


DR. NETON: This came up I think at the TIB052 meeting we had, sort of déjà vu around 


here. And I thought at that time we had 


discussed the idea of the implementation of 


these things is really, the proof of the 


implementation is in the review of the dose 


reconstructions. 


And at that time I thought that the 


Board, or working group at least, had decided 


that they would try to pull out specific cases 


where coworker models were used to see, to 


demonstrate, if NIOSH had or had not chosen 


the appropriate bracket for those workers. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

Because I think our argument at that point 


went very much along the lines of what Stu was 


saying was it really is in the implementation. 


I mean, every site is different. 


We have different site-specific TIBs, 


and they do provide guidance, but until you go 


out there and look at the dose reconstruction 


and see how it’s being implemented, you really 


can’t tell. So I would say to some extent it 


can only be determined through looking at how 


dose reconstructions are being carried out. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Stu and Jim 


Neton, this is Hans Behling. And as John said 


I was the one who reviewed this particular 


procedure. And I concur with this point 


because I have now had a chance to not only 


look at this particular procedure but also 


view it in context with a site-specific 


coworker data model. And specifically, I’m 


referring to the Portsmouth situation. 


And I concur with you because when you 


do not look at this in context with a site 


specific coworker model, all of the questions 


that I had raised up front are now at this 


point somewhat answered. And I feel confident 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

that in combination with a site-specific 


coworker model to the questions that were 


raised have been answered. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, great, thanks. 


DR. NETON: How do we capture that? 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, here’s SC&A agreeing with 


the comment. SC&A agrees with the comment or 


NIOSH or --


MR. HINNEFELD: Our response. 


MS. MUNN: And this brings up --


DR. ZIEMER: And I think, Hans, you’ve seen 


that in actual cases, right? 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, I have. 


And as I said I’m currently reviewing the 


Portsmouth site profile, and I’ve looked at 


also the site-specific coworker dose model, 


and I’ve looked at actual dose reconstruction. 


And in combination with those three things, 


the TBD, the site-specific coworker model and 


the dose reconstruction that made use of that, 


I’m very, very satisfied with the combination 


of information that allows for a sound dose 


reconstruction. 


MS. MUNN: This brings up another process 


issue which we have not yet addressed as a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

working group bothering your Chair 


tremendously. That’s the fact that in our 


matrix we as yet have absolutely nothing in 


any of the Board recommendation columns. I 


don’t think we even identified exactly how and 


when we are going to incorporate anything in 


that activity. It’s my view that once we have 


reached the point where we have just achieved 


here on this particular issue, we need to be 


making some sort of notation in the Board 


recommendation that this is resolved. If we 


do not do it in this work group, I’m not sure 


exactly when and where that’s going to occur. 


Has anyone else given any thought to that? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I mean, we used a 


system, I think, similar to the dose 


reconstruction matrices, the Board 


recommendation, or there may be some place in 


common in here. I’m not exactly sure what the 


title of the next column is in that matrix. 


MS. MUNN: Program Actions. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there’s a Program 


Actions, but there’s also a Board 


Recommendation and Program Actions. Those are 


the two that are on there. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

MS. MUNN: Yes. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And dose reconstruction very 


frequently after our initial response you’ll 


see a statement, a column there that says 


either NIOSH Agrees or SC&A Agrees. It says 


something like that. 


MS. MUNN: In other matrices it does, and 


here it doesn’t. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And then the Program Action 


may be NIOSH agrees to revise such-and-such or 


we change some process in the dose 


reconstruction world. Or in this one it would 


be we agree to revise some document. Or the 


Program Action could be none. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, Paul. 


DR. ZIEMER: I might add, and I just 


confirmed this by checking our dose 


reconstruction matrices, we have another 


column which is the Resolution column which 


indicates, for example here’s one, NIOSH and 


SC&A agree on this item or something like 


that. Or SC&A to do something or NIOSH is to 


reconsider something. But there’s a 


Resolution column before the Board Action. 


And you could actually have another column 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

that would be labeled Working Group 


Recommendation or something like that even. 


MS. MUNN: I’m concerned with the number of 


items that we have on these matrices that we 


don’t have such a resolution column as we have 


in other matrices that other work groups are 


dealing with, and that we don’t have the kind 


of information we were just speaking of 


earlier with respect to roll ups and when 


something comes off. 


DR. MAURO: So am I correct right now I’m 


looking at the matrix, where OTIB-0020 exists, 


and it’s on page five of the September 27th
 

draft that Stu sent out. What I’m hearing is 


that what we could use is another column to 


the right that says Resolution. And right now 


we put in closed. So that would close it. So 


the next matrix for this, this would not be on 


it. 


MS. MUNN: Correct. 


DR. MAURO: But it would be on the archive. 


MS. MUNN: The archive list, yes. 


 DR. WADE: Let’s explore the right-hand 


regions of that matrix a little bit more. 


What would be the heading of the comment where 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

it says closed? 


DR. MAURO: Resolution. 


MS. MUNN: Resolution. 


 DR. WADE: Well, we do need to, there is the 


issue, we want to leave open the possibility 


that SC&A could say we don’t agree with NIOSH, 


and then the Board decides that it’s closed. 


So is this resolution column a Board column or 


-- so we need to just make sure that we cover 


all the possibilities. There will be some 


items that will be closed between the two 


parties. There’ll be some items that the 


Board will eventually have to decide upon, and 


we need to leave room for that. Do you see 


what I mean? 


MS. MUNN: But the resolution column would 


be, I believe, presented to the Board for 


final decision. 


 DR. WADE: But it’ll come in two ways. 


There’ll be issues where --


DR. ZIEMER: It may not be a resolution. 


DR. BRANCHE: It’s a recommendation, isn’t 


it? 


MS. MUNN: We have Board recommendations. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, it’s not the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

recommendation at that point. It’s the 


outcome of the response and whether or not 


SC&A agreed to the response or didn’t agree. 


MS. MUNN: It’s the outcome of this process 


right here. That’s what we’re looking for. 


DR. ZIEMER: We called it resolution in the 


dose reconstruction matrices, but it wasn’t 


always a resolution. It’s sort of the 


outcome. I think we used that word, 


resolution --


DR. MAKHIJANI: I think a different title 


for that might be, might say NIOSH/SC&A 


status, and then --


DR. ZIEMER: Something like that. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: -- Board Action and then 


Program Action so that it’s clear that NIOSH 


agrees, SC&A agrees so that the NIOSH column 


in this case SC&A agrees. So then the Board 


can decide. 


DR. ZIEMER: Or it could be NIOSH/SC&A 


resolution-slash-status or something like 


that. 


 DR. WADE: While you’re working over lunch 


on this, John. 


DR. MAURO: It’ll be a long lunch. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79 

MS. MUNN: That, however, there’s more than 


one opinion apparently on what to do with 


that. I personally still would support the 


concept of using resolution for more reasons 


than one. It’s an identifier to us that the 


work of this particular body is essentially 


done on that item. And if the resolution 


column says referred to the full Board, then 


that’s an action for this group to take, but 


it still is a resolution. 


The additional reason I would like to 


stick with that terminology is that’s what we 


have used in other working groups and in other 


matrices. Whatever we do, it seems to me that 


we should develop some kind of consistency so 


those of us who are working with more than one 


set of documents and one set of information 


can follow through without having to put our 


new hat on every single time to identify what 


the presentation format is going to be and 


what that means. 


DR. MAURO: It seems to me that what we’re 


maturing to the point in this process where 


we’re starting to understand the nuance in 


each step. For example, the fact that right 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

now what we have is agreement between NIOSH 


and SC&A on a particular technical issue. As 


far as SC&A is concerned that issue has been 


resolved, and we have no further comment. Of 


course, then we go to the next tier which says 


the working group because the working group 


heard that. And the working group could very 


well judge, well, there’s still some aspects 


of it that you’re uncomfortable with it. 


DR. ZIEMER: Or we don’t like either --


DR. MAURO: So that’s your purview. It’s 


almost like it’s a tier. Then the next step 


is, well, it’s not over yet. There’s the 


Board. So what we will try to do during lunch 


is to tease out the layers of the decision-


making process or whatever the right name is 


so that we have columns that capture it so 


that the last column in the end has to be the 


Board has closed out this item. And if you 


want to know how we got there, go see the 


archive. 


 DR. WADE: Right, John. See, it’s important 


to realize that around this table what’s 


happening is the work group is witnessing 


discussion between NIOSH and the Board. The 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

work group can engage in that, but the work 


group is also witnessing it. If it comes to 


closure, the work group has to decide whether 


it accepts that closure. The other important 


thing to include is that sometimes NIOSH and 


SC&A agree that intellectually we’ve closed on 


issues it will result in the re-issuance of a 


new procedure. We can’t lose that. It has to 


be tracked through. 


MS. MUNN: Lunch is getting longer. I can 


tell. I do hope that the matrix format does 


not become so complex that we have so many 


columns on it that it won’t fit on a page of 


eight-and-a-half by 11 paper, simply because 


that’s the only size my printer will take. 


DR. MAURO: I’m going to put something on 


the table that I’m sure will be controversial, 


but, see, I think the matrix has served us 


well to the point but now I’m starting to 


think it really has to go down. In other 


words, we’ve been going this way, right? 


Going across. And the number of columns and 


today whether we realize it or not, we’ve 


added a few more columns which are important 


columns that are not going to fit on the page. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

Maybe we could make a matrix that goes 


down and its structure, that is, it has a 


format where each of these steps in the 


process are itemized and someone could just go 


down like PROC-90 would have the same columns 


concept but go down the page. Could we go 


down the page? Because right now when NIOSH 


fills in a response in a little, skinny 


column, it goes on for three pages. I think 


it’s time to maybe consider going the other 


direction. 


MS. MUNN: Let’s think about that after 


you’ve identified what needs to be on it. And 


for the moment I’ve been asked by more than 


one person for a comfort break, short, please, 


ten minutes. We do want to get back through 


some more of these things before we break for 


lunch. We’ll be offline for ten minutes for 


those of you who are on. 


DR. ZIEMER: What time is lunch? 


MS. MUNN: I had planned lunch for 12:30. 


With any luck at all 12:30, but it may be a 


little after that. 


 DR. WADE: We’re going to mute the phone. 


We’ll be back with you in ten minutes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

(Whereupon, a break was taken from 11:30 


a.m. until 11:40 a.m.) 


 DR. WADE: We’re going back into session. 


Could I ask one person, the smartest person 


who’s connected by phone, to identify the fact 


that you’re hearing us? 


(no response) 


MS. MUNN: Boy, listen to that. 


 DR. WADE: Anybody on the phone. Can 


anybody hear me? 


MS. CHANG: Yes, I can hear you. 


MS. MUNN: We have, I believe, completed our 


discussion of the first item on the NIOSH 


action item list. The second item is OTIB0028, comments two and three. I’m assuming 


that SC&A has received those output files from 


the Eckerman analysis. Are we all on the same 


page or am I confusing people? I’m just going 


down the action item list. 


DR. NETON: Which one did you say, Wanda? 


MS. MUNN: The second of the NIOSH action 


item list. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Those are the files on the 


thorium intakes. I sent those like a couple 


days --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

DR. MAURO: So these were Eckerman’s files? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: Eckerman’s files. Yes, we got 


it. We reviewed it, and everything’s fine. 


MS. MUNN: So items one and two under NIOSH 


are complete. 


Review the title and content of OTIB0033 dash 01 and modify as needed. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think that may be 


part of our general discussion of 33 which I 


think may still be coming up or is that, I 


mean, we need to talk about we’ve gotten 


information on how it’s being used and things 


like that. 


MS. MUNN: Do you want to undertake that or 


is that going to be so lengthy that we need to 


do it after lunch? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I’d like to maybe get 


a status on the rest of these things and then 


we can come back to it. 


MS. MUNN: All right, let’s postpone it. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I mean before we go to the 


matrix we can go back to it. 


MS. MUNN: All right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB-0053 I don’t believe is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

completed yet. 


MS. MUNN: Incomplete so it needs to carry 


over. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s still going through 


review. It’s not published yet, but we will 


when it’s complete provide it to the work 


group and to SC&A. 


MS. MUNN: Did we skip over OTIB-0004? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Oh, yeah, I’m sorry, skipped 


OTIB-0004. We did, in fact, verify that it 


does describe it is used for uranium metals 


only, facilities only. And, in fact, there’s 


more information about that in the matrix 


where we, I think we even cite where it is in 


the procedure. But the procedure itself does 


say it’s limited to uranium metal facilities. 


MS. MUNN: Shall we check the matrix and 


dispose of that item on the matrix then? What 


page? 


 MR. PRESLEY: What page is it on the matrix? 


DR. ZIEMER: Page 24. 


MR. HINNEFELD: OTIB-0004 starts on page 20. 


MS. MUNN: Well, yes, but the only action 


item we had outstanding was to confirm that it 


deals only with uranium metal facilities and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

not chemical processing. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, and the additional 


information is in red. It begins, I believe, 


on page 21. 


MS. MUNN: Do you want to take a minute and 


read through that? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Hans, it’s on page 21. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, that’s correct. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Page 21 of the one that Stu 

sent out. 

MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

MS. MUNN: The most recent one that I asked 


everybody to have in hand when we came to this 


meeting. 


MR. HINNEFELD: There’s a fairly extensive 


quote from OTIB-0004 there that essentially 


says it’s only for metal facilities. 


DR. ZIEMER: Could I, this is Ziemer. I 


just want to ask. I know that was a question 


that was asked, but how does that fit in with 


this particular finding about the breathing 


rate? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t know that it does. 


I just knew that there was no real finding I 


don’t think that fit to this issue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

MS. MUNN: I don’t believe so. There was 


just a general question raised during the 


discussion at our last meeting. 


DR. ZIEMER: But contextually, why did that 


arise on this one? 


DR. MAURO: You’re referring to the 


breathing rate question or --


MR. HINNEFELD: Why is it there in the 


matrix I believe is the question. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, why did it --


MR. HINNEFELD: There was no finding for 


OTIB-0004 related to this. It was a question 


that arose at the last work group meeting, and 


so I put the response like on the first 


finding. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I guess my question is 


though why did it arise with respect to this? 


Would it have made a difference if it was 


chemically, if there were chemical processing? 


What --


MS. MUNN: Well, it may have arisen as a 


result of discussion of item three under OTIB0004. 


DR. ZIEMER: On the recycled uranium? 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, where we were talking about 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

the possibility of --


MR. HINNEFELD: I believe you’re right. I 


believe you’re right. 


MS. MUNN: -- and I think that’s when that 


issue arose. 


DR. ZIEMER: So maybe just move that to the 


box --


MS. MUNN: Yeah, if you just move it over to 


that three, then I think that’ll do it. Does 


that satisfy? 


DR. MAURO: In terms of the information 


where it is, now this question of why we asked 


the question for is it for process facilities 


or for only metal working facilities? I 


believe the reason that question came up at 


the last meeting was the justification for 


using 100 MAC as an upper bound value for 


chronic exposure to airborne uranium in OTIB0004 was based on a review of the literature. 


And when you review the literature which is 


cited in their supporting documentation, you 


find that for uranium metal working 


facilities, 100 MAC certainly is a bounding 


value. However, if you include non-metal 


facilities such as Harshaw Chemical Company, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

which is a chemical processing where they 


process ore with a lot of chemistry, you find 


that the airborne uranium dust loadings often, 


the breathing zone, the time-weighted average, 


could be well above 100 MAC. So it was 


important to make that distinction. The fact 


that OTIB-0004 is limited to metal working 


facilities answers our question. Yes, we 


concur that 100 MAC is bounding. 


DR. ZIEMER: And that deals with finding 


seven which is the dust loading, the basis for 


the dust loading figure that was used. Is 


that right? Rather than finding four? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think finding seven is 


about resuspension. Actually, it was about 


resuspension during the residual period. 


DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We can move that to three. 


DR. MAURO: Move on to that? 


MS. MUNN: Move to three or leave it where 


it is? 


DR. MAURO: I’m fine with the response 


regarding, that it’s metal working facilities, 


bam, problem solved as far as we’re concerned. 


MS. MUNN: And its placement’s okay? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

DR. MAURO: Sorry? 


MS. MUNN: Its placement on the matrix? 


DR. MAURO: Okay, I see it as belonging 


there, yeah. 


MS. MUNN: Very good. No action. 


Completed. 


Now, Stu, we’re down to report status 


of the ingestion global issue. 


DR. NETON: That is still being worked. I 


think I reported last time that we had hired a 


contractor to help us review the ingestion 


model, they were assembling it and getting 


ready to put out a technical information 


bulletin on it, but it is still in progress. 


MS. MUNN: So it will not be ready for this 


Board meeting. 


DR. NETON: It became more complicated than 


I thought because there’s a number of findings 


that hit on the ingestion model, and it took 


awhile to actually sift through all of these 


issues and come out with the crux of the 


issue. I think we’ve got our hands on it now. 


MS. MUNN: On which of the forthcoming 


meetings will we probably hear about that? 


DR. NETON: It’s next on the list as far as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

the overarching issues go to talk about on 


Wednesday at the Board meeting, but I would 


say by the time of the next Board meeting we 


should have. 


 MR. PRESLEY: January. 


MS. MUNN: So we’ll change it to January, 


right? 


Next item, provide a list of completed 


and in process PERS. We have that. Is it the 


desire of this group to pursue that any 


further at this moment? You have the list. 


Stu’s provided you with a list of the PERS, 


and we indicated earlier that we wouldn’t 


address that in depth until the reworks are 


complete. Some of the reworks are still in 


process. What’s the feeling of this body? 


The same as we were before? We will not do 


anything substantive until the reworks are 


done, right? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: Can we anticipate that the 


December meeting of this group would be an 


adequate time to get through those or do we 


need to hold that open? 


Paul has a comment. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

DR. ZIEMER: Well, Stu I think also gave us 


a list of when they would be completed, and I 


see some of them were slated for December 31st . 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, now wait a minute. 


Those are the PERS; that’s not the completion 


of the cases. That’s the completion of the 


determination of which cases have binned. I 


mean, you’ll notice there are three columns on 


page one on the first page where it talks 


about PERS have been completed. And this is a 


little complicated by the fact that the PER 


process changed relatively recently. 


But the current process is that what 


we call the PER bins the affected cases into 


three bins. These are the, actually, we call 


them potentially affected cases. And they are 


cases that have been, where final dose 


reconstruction’s been completed, but the dose 


reconstruction technique that was used in 


those dose reconstructions may, in fact, be 


subject to whatever it is we’re changing. The 


PER reflects some change in technique. That’s 


why we write them. 


So the potentially affected claims are 


claims that meet the most general criteria for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

maybe being affected. It may be the site. 


You know, if it’s a change that occurs at a 


site for all time it would be any case from 


that site. If a change occurred at a site 


after a particular year, there would be cases 


where the employment included employment after 


that year. So the potentially affected cases 


are the most broad application of who might be 


affected by this change. 


The PER process then bins those into 


three categories. One is this change, just 


based on a computer search, there are certain 


criteria based on and just kind of depends on 


the nature of the PER and the nature of the 


change and the extent of the change. Through 


computer query you can identify certain cases 


where the dose is going to go up when we adopt 


this change on this case, and so we want that 


one back. 


There’s another, you can also on some 


of these bin cases into a bin where this case 


will not go back because there’s some criteria 


that would prevent it, the dose from going up. 


It doesn’t meet all the criteria. And they’re 


in the PER search criteria, written in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

PER. 


And then the third bin is, well, we 


can’t tell whether this dose is going to go up 


unless we actually look at the dose 


reconstruction report and see precisely what 


was done against the changes that were done. 


So then that is the first step of binning. 


And so when a PER is complete, all 


that means is the cases have been binned into 


those three categories. So all the cases that 


we’ve asked DOL to send back have not 


necessarily been reworked. And the cases that 


are binned into we can’t tell, are not 


necessarily reworked and may not even be 


recalled. So when we say PER complete, all 


we’re saying is that we have identified the 


universe of potentially affected claims by 


that change and have binned them accordingly. 


So those dates on the second page, that’s not 


when those reworked cases are going to be 


done. 


MS. MUNN: Before we go any further I’m 


sorry I didn’t check to make sure everyone was 


on, had the PER list in front of them that Stu 


sent on the 27th of September. We all have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

those. We’re looking at them. Then back to 


the comment that Stu just made, is our 


expectation in this action item perhaps 


incorrect? If we’re going to withhold in 


depth review until reworks are complete, will 


reworks ever be complete in the sense that 


they’ll be done and closed out or will we not 


always --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it’s my desire that we 


will be complete before my career ends. 


MS. MUNN: But there will always be, there 


are likely to be more in the pipeline at any 


given time. Is that not true? 


DR. NETON: Maybe I can shed a little light 


on this. I think early on the working group 


and the Board may have been interested in 


looking at PERS because NIOSH exercised some 


judgment to which ones were going to go over 


50 percent or not. That we would not rework 


those cases. The way the process has evolved 


as Stu described it we will not, we will ask 


for a complete rework on every case that NIOSH 


would have to do some sort of manipulation of 


the data to come to that conclusion, a 


definitive conclusion. So in a sense we are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

not triaging now based on some analysis that 


we could do to say, okay, all cases that are 


over 30 percent -- or under 30 percent will 


not go over 50 because the change cannot be 


greater than X. We’re not doing that any 


more. 


The category that Stu explained where 


we can triage these cases and say it’s not 


affected the case is truly that there’s no 


effect on the dose reconstruction at all. 


That is, either the person’s dose 


reconstruction was reconstructed using 


bioassay data from some model that was 


changed. There’s no effect on these cases at 


all other than a very, this is a very 


regimented distribution now. So if we say a 


case wasn’t affected it means because it 


doesn’t affect the dose reconstruction at all, 


not because we don’t think the increase won’t 


go over 50 percent. 


So these are very finely partitioned 


bins, and so they’re essentially, when the 


process is done, I think they’re done in the 


sense that we’re asking for a rework which 


means that we will just put them right through 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

the normal process, the normal dose 


reconstruction process. And how those get 


cycled back to us is, who knows? I mean that 


comes back through the Department of Labor, 


and they have to issue bulletins and such so 


that can take some time. 


But the other two bins are pretty 


unique, pretty easily dispositioned. They’re 


either, there was no material effect at all on 


the dose reconstruction or -- what was the 


third one now? It goes over 50. We have to 


look at it. And there’s that one case where 


we’re still looking at them to make that 


determination. 


MS. MUNN: So are those bins effectively the 


three columns that we have here but the 


wording is not quite the same as you described 


it here? 


DR. NETON: No, I’m not sure. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the three bins are on 


the table here. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


MR. HINNEFELD: One is returned. Those are 


based on our query. We determine this one is 


going to go up. The dose is going to go up on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

this. It’s going to be affected by the change 


and so we ask DOL to return this case. 


The don’t return, is that based on the 


query we determine that this case is not 


affected by the change, and therefore, there’s 


no need to return it. And the to be reviewed 


column is the one where we have to look at the 


dose reconstruction to determine whether it 


needs to be done or not. 


For instance, if you look on the 


table, PER number 11 is a K-25 external 


coworker model change. We don’t have a 


computer query that will tell us whether a 


coworker model was used in the dose 


reconstruction. So that means we have to look 


at each one to determine whether a coworker 


approach was used in dose reconstruction. So 


that’s why we have to look at all those. So 


that’s why that was binned that way. 


MS. MUNN: What’s the desire of the work 


group with respect to the type of tracking we 


want to maintain on PERs? Is this kind of 


report adequate for what you want to see or do 


you actually want to have more in depth 


discussion after, for example, item 11 has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

been vetted further in NIOSH? Are we content 


with getting this kind of report and asking 


questions as they come up? 


This satisfies the Chair’s need for 


information with respect to where we are now 


that I understand what the three bins are. I 


didn’t really understand that at the time I 


received the information. Is there any 


concern for information other than what NIOSH 


has given us in this respect? 


DR. ZIEMER: Let me suggest something here, 


at least ask the question. Would it be, do we 


want to know the outcome of these 


statistically -- as I understand it now, for 


example, let’s take the Super S thing. 


There’s some 5,000, 4,800 cases --


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, potentially affected. 


DR. ZIEMER: -- affected. Would it be of 


value to know the numbers of cases -- this is 


potentially affecting? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Right, potentially 


affecting. 


DR. ZIEMER: To know the outcome, you know, 


how many were actually affected? Sort of the 


bottom line of this? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

DR. NETON: It might be more complicated 


than that in the sense that we no longer do 


individual changes piecemeal. We will apply 


all changes that affect that case 


simultaneously when it comes back for rework. 


So we get back to Super S, it may have six 


other changes that are affecting and they’ll 


all be done at the same time. 


DR. ZIEMER: So well, they’re overlapping 


these numbers then, too, is what you’re 


saying. 


DR. NETON: That was what we agreed to at 


the Department of Labor. When they send the 


case back we just rework it from soup to nuts 


because there’s no reason to do these 


individual. 


MS. MUNN: The bottom line question here --


DR. ZIEMER: Well, maybe it’s not the bottom 


line of each line then. Maybe it’s overall 


the bottom line. But what’s the final outcome 


going to be? All the rework, maybe this is a 


reporting item. I guess I’d be interested in 


knowing the impact of all the reworks. It’s 


not a, it’s just an interest item. 


MS. MUNN: For the time being is this kind 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

of information adequate? 


DR. ZIEMER: You’re going to know that at 


some point I guess. 


DR. NETON: I think that’s --


DR. ZIEMER: If it makes extra work, if it’s 


something you’re --


DR. NETON: Now easily I would say that I 


think we should be able to track that. Of 


course, every time I say that the computer 


people cringe. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I’m not interested in 


making extra work. If it’s something that --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think that the data 


system that we’re setting up, the application 


we’re setting up to track this, the PER 


process, will be able to us for all the cases 


that are affected by Super S, how many changed 


ultimately. And now it can probably also tell 


us how many of those cases were also affected 


by other PERS as well during their rework. 


But it wouldn’t necessarily be able to feather 


out which one really was the key change. 


DR. NETON: What I think all Dr. Ziemer’s 


asking is an overall number. 


DR. ZIEMER: It would be kind of interesting 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

to know that. 


DR. NETON: ^ rework processing moving 


claims from non-compensable to compensable. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The overall total matrix. 


DR. ZIEMER: If it’s something that can be 


done readily, I think it would be of interest. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think we’ll be able to do 


that if I understand the design of the PER 


system, application correctly. I think we’ll 


be able to do that. But it’s just, I think it 


rolled out this week. 


DR. MAURO: Do you work within an ACCESS 


database? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Sequal. 


DR. MAURO: Same thing. 


DR. NETON: It’s a relational database. 


MS. MUNN: Therefore, I believe I’m hearing 


this information is, in fact, what this group 


wants to see from time to time on a continuing 


basis if the data can be expanded as Dr. 


Ziemer has requested without additional 


effort, then that additional information would 


be appreciated but is not absolutely 


necessary. Did I state that properly? 


 (no response) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

MS. MUNN: Hearing no --


DR. ZIEMER: I have no interest in making 


additional work. If it’s something you’re 


going to, information you’re going to track 


anyway just to share it, otherwise no. I 


think it would be of interest to know. 


 DR. WADE: Just so we’re grounded in the 


Board’s charter, the Board’s charter when it 


comes to function instructs the Board of its 


functions and speaks to the need of the Board 


to advise the Secretary of HHS on the 


scientific validity and quality of dose 


reconstruction efforts performed under this 


program. Now your question is in order to 


perform that function is this valuable 


information for you? 


MS. MUNN: Correct. 


 DR. WADE: I can certainly make the argument 


that it is, but the Board would need to make 


that judgment and then ask for what it needs 


to perform its function. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I guess if you took the 


extreme case and said all these are being 


reviewed and reworked and so on and it didn’t 


change anything, then we’d have a real 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

question on the validity of some of the 


changes. I just wouldn’t expect that to 


occur. You’re going to be somewhere in 


between I suppose. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Various ones will be varying 


degrees. I mean, some of these are relatively 


large changes. Some of them are relatively 


large changes but only for certain target 


organs. So it’s just going to be a mixture. 


There may be some of these where the actual 


change in compensation is very small in the 


reworked cases. 


 DR. WADE: So onto the issue of quality and 


validity of dose reconstructions, the Board 


could look at this summary information as a 


barometer. Whether or not it was comfortable 


with that or wanted to delve further, and I 


think that’s quite reasonable. 


MS. MUNN: The reworks could be expected to 


be all the way across the board I think. For 


the time being we’re happy with what we have 


until we can identify whether some additional 


breakout is easy to do without a great deal of 


additional work. 


 DR. WADE: I do think it sort of leaves the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

realm of procedures and gets into the Board’s 


overall responsibilities. 


DR. MAURO: I see this as -- When you think 


about it, this is where the rubber meets the 


road: collectively review the procedures, the 


review of the OTIBs, the review of the site 


profiles and all the commentaries that 


propagate through eventually are going to 


somehow affect all of these thousands of cases 


one way or the other and in the end closure 


is, okay, how many cases did it affect and 


were there any reversals. Then that’s where 


we’re trying to get to to see how robust the 


program is. And this is going to be the 


ultimate matrix, how robust that is working. 


It’s very important. 


DR. ZIEMER: And I suppose you could argue 


that this kind of information should be in the 


Dose Reconstruction Subcommittee ultimately 


because it’s changing outcomes for dose 


reconstructions. 


 DR. WADE: If it has a place other than the 


Board, I think that’s where it would be. 


MS. MUNN: On to the next item. 


MR. HINNEFELD: That is complete ^ revisions 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

of the five documents. I know that OCAS TIB0008 is finished and is just waiting 


signature. It’s been reviewed and the review 


comments have been incorporated, and I believe 


awaiting signature. 


TIB six and seven has been revised and 


is in internal review. Comments, I believe, 


have been generated, and the author’s on 


vacation, but I believe those will be 


resolved, those would be final this week and 


on the way to signature. 


The other two, IG-0002 I think is 


going to take a little more time because of 


the breadth of the document, the variety of 


topics. And then ORAU OTIB-0001 I don’t have 


a status on but the revision is being worked 


on. 


MS. MUNN: So at our December meeting we can 


anticipate having seen OTIB-0006, -0007 and ­

0008. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Six, seven, eight will be 


done by then so when they’re signed should we 


go ahead and send them to the work group and 


to SC&A? 


MS. MUNN: It would be helpful, I think, for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

all concerned if that were to transpire in 


that fashion. And I’m sorry. I missed your 


comment on IG-002. 


MR. HINNEFELD: IG-002 I don’t have a date 


for when that will be revised. That will, 


because of the breadth of the document, some 


comments, I guess, will be kind of a rougher 


revision or a more difficult revision than the 


OCAS TIB revision, and OTIB-0001 revision is 


taking a fair amount of effort as well. So I 


don’t have dates on either of those right now. 


MS. MUNN: All right, we’ll carry those over 


on our action item list so that we can keep 


track of them, and we’ll anticipate six, seven 


and eight in December. 


 DR. WADE: Six, seven and eight. 

MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, OTIBs six, seven and 

eight. 

MR. HINNEFELD: These are actually OCAS 


TIBs. Normally an OTIB is ORAU TIB. These 


are TIBs. 


 DR. WADE: These are OCAS TIBs six and seven 


and eight. What about ORAU OTIB-0001? 


DR. ZIEMER: He said that’ll take some time. 


MS. MUNN: He said it’s going to take a long 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

time. 


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s in process. I just 


don’t have a date. 


 DR. WADE: And OCAS IG-002? 


MR. HINNEFELD: The same thing. 


MS. MUNN: The same thing. That’s the same 


thing. It’s going to take awhile. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Excuse me, 


Wanda, can I ask a question? When NIOSH does 


release OCAS TIBs six, seven and eight, am I 


hearing that SC&A will get that at the same 


time, and should we be reviewing that in our 


next set of procedures? 


MS. MUNN: You did hear that SC&A will be 


doing that, will be receiving it. Is that on 


a list of procedures for you already? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): No, I don’t 


believe it is. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I don’t think they’re on. 


They’ve been assigned to review them again. I 


mean, they’ve reviewed them once, and we’ve 


now made a revision. 


DR. NETON: It would seem to close out a 


revision in the matrix would suffice rather 


than a re-review of the entire procedure. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

DR. ZIEMER: It appears that the revised 


documents are addressing the issues that were 


raised, so the close-out process has to, in a 


sense, require a look at what the resolution 


is in the whole review of that. 


DR. MAURO: We have a bit of a transition 


question I guess that warrants some 


discussion. Perfect example, we have in 


Fiscal Year 2008 a budget for Task 3 to review 


procedures, PERs and ^ and OTIBs, new ones. 


But of course, at the same time we have this 


ongoing process of achieving closure some of 


which is protracted, some of which are not 


previously reviewed procedures. 


I guess right now what I’m hearing is 


that, for example, in the case of the 


procedures we’re talking about this is really 


part of the close-out process --


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: -- from the historical so we 


need to keep that. I guess from my 


perspective it’s very helpful for SC&A to make 


a clear distinction between those activities 


that the Board is requesting us to or the work 


group, that really is relegated to previous 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

work. You know, fiscal year 2006-7 as opposed 


to something that’s new and is going to be 


part of 2008. That would be helpful, too. 


 DR. WADE: Just, John, as you’re building 


some hours for the close out of site profiles 


I think you’re hearing that it would be 


appropriate for you to do that for procedures 


as well. 


DR. MAURO: Well, the facts of the matter is 


Task 3, which is procedure reviews, the Fiscal 


Year 2007 budget for that work will be 


consumed this month. We have taken up quite a 


bit of additional add-ons --


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: -- because we had the budget and 


it was a very convenient place to add on some 


additional work to take care of these things. 


And we will deliver all our deliverables by, 


very soon, a matter of weeks which includes 


this other, the latest one which had to do 


with General Steel Industries, if you recall 


it was Appendix BB, and TBD-6000. 


Now the reason I’m bringing all this 


up is any procedure reviews that follow on, 


let’s say into the future, we will have no 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

resources left in Fiscal Year 2007. We will 


have to -- once we do additional procedure 


review activities, including the close-out 


process for all procedures, we will need to go 


into Fiscal Year 2008 resources. 


Now that being said it is my 


understanding that we can’t do that until we 


are given direction and authorization by the 


Board to move forward on those activities. In 


other words because previously -- and please 


correct me if I’m wrong -- I guess it was a 


contractual question. 


When we, right now we have the 


authority to go forward and do all that needs 


to be done on all the procedures that we were 


asked to review in the past within the budget 


that we have allocated. We are rapidly 


approaching the day where all of the resources 


that we’ve allocated for Task 3 activities 


will have been expended. 


But there are ongoing Fiscal Year 2007 


procedure review close-out activities that are 


going to be continued well into Fiscal Year 


2008, and that will require us to dip into our 


Fiscal Year 2008 budget. And we do have money 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

there, but I was not planning on using that 


money. I was planning on putting that in the 


safe for when you do give us direction to do 


2008 activities. So we have a bit of a 


problem, and I guess we’re looking for 


direction from the Board. 


MS. MUNN: I can see the dilemma. Frankly, 


it never occurred to me that this would turn 


into a contractual problem simply because in 


my mind, once the Board had directed you to 


look at a specific procedure, if you raised 


questions, then activities were necessary to 


resolve the questions that were raised. And 


in my mind closure of those issues would be 


part and parcel of the initial direction. But 


I can see the concern that you have. 


DR. MAURO: I might be wrong. I mean it may 


turn out that we have the wherewithal to just 


continue to work and start to use up resources 


that have been put in Task 3 for Fiscal Year 


2008 to do Fiscal Year 2007 work. 


 DR. WADE: Contractually that’s not a 


problem. What you need to do is if you start 


to see your free board in terms of 2008 of new 


reviews in jeopardy because of continuing work 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

for 2007, you need to notify the Contract 


Officer of the Board of that. And then the 


Board -- it’s a matter of scope, not a 


contractual issue. 


DR. MAURO: Got it. 


 DR. WADE: So that’s fine. 


MS. MUNN: You will follow through on that? 


DR. MAURO: I will take care of that. 


 DR. WADE: If you see it becoming an issue 


where you need to say, you know, I was going 


to do 30. I can only do 20 new because of my 


continuing efforts. You need to let us know 


that as quickly as possible. But feel 


empowered to do the work on the close out of 


previous procedures using ’08 money based upon 


this discussion. 


DR. MAURO: I understand. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Wanda, this is 


Kathy again. The reason I raised the question 


about, and John talked about one portion of 


it, typically what we’ve done in the past is 


we don’t treat this just as an issues 


resolution process where we only look at the 


revised procedure for outstanding findings. 


We have in the past, just like with 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

the Implementation Guide One and Four, we 


review the entire procedure looking at old 


findings as well as looking at how that 


procedure is rewritten because very often the 


procedure is completely rewritten. TIB-0004 


is an example of that. 


Now I’m not sure if NIOSH is 


indicating that on TIB-0006, TIB-0007 and TIB0008 that the only changes that were 


incorporated into those procedures were based 


on our findings which maybe we can just go in 


and say, yes, did they satisfy those findings. 


But quite often what we’ve seen in the 


past when they make a revision it doesn’t only 


incorporate these findings. They may 


restructure the report or restructure the 


procedure or the guidance document and so on. 


So we make it a completely new review from our 


standpoint. 


The other thing that’s nice is if we 


incorporate these three procedures along with 


-- in fact, I don’t think we finished talking 


about OTIB-0008 and OTIB-0010, if those get 


incorporated in for ’08 fiscal year work, then 


again, we can put out one work product. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

Everything gets put on one matrix, and we 


follow everything through very cleanly. 


I’m a little concerned about just 


looking at TIB six, seven and eight and only 


these outstanding findings. I don’t know how 


to capture all that very cleanly. What I 


would prefer is that the Board at some point 


says we will add to the procedures we’ve 


already identified for ’08, we will add TIB 


six, seven and eight along with OTIB-0008 and 


OTIB-0010. I’m just suggesting that. It just 


makes things cleaner. I don’t know if people 


agree or disagree. 


 DR. WADE: It’s really a matter of degree. 


I mean if it turns out that the modifications 


are solely or largely based upon the previous 


critique, then I think that’s one category. 


If those changes go well beyond those 


resulting from the critique, and in essence 


it’s a new document, then you need to let the 


Board and the work group know that. 


DR. MAURO: We have a bit of an optics 


problem in terms of SC&A’s perspective. That 


is I would not as the project manager 


responsible for the budget and scope find 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

myself in the position where we end up using 


up 50 percent of the Fiscal Year 2008 Task 3 


budget closing out all the TIBs, and then I 


have to bring the bad news to the working 


group and the Board that, listen, we don’t 


have any more money in Task 3 to do any of the 


work or that we originally hoped we would be 


able to do for you for Fiscal Year 2008 


because we used it as part of the close-out 


process. 


And as you said, it’s really a 


judgment call. When are we just closing out 


some minor issues on some previously reviewed 


TIB, and when are we really doing a complete 


review? And sometimes that’s not apparent 


until you’re into the process. 


MS. MUNN: Paul. 


DR. ZIEMER: My comments are along the lines 


of what Lew was saying. It might be helpful 


if NIOSH could identify on these revisions, it 


seems to me there’s three categories. 


One is the revision is solely to 


address concerns raised in the review process 


and addresses only those. Revisions that are 


completely independent of that, but NIOSH has 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

generated a revision because they have seen 


something themselves maybe that the old 


procedure was in effect and needs updating or 


whatever. It’s a completely new one. Or 


something such as Kathy described where the 


opportunity to make other changes if they’re 


revising it anyway occurs, and you’re 


somewhere in the middle. 


I don’t know how easily we could 


identify those so that you would know, okay, 


on these it is really part of the close out, 


and you don’t have to address anything else. 


These are really the only changes. I don’t 


know how easily we could identify the nature 


of a revision. 


 DR. WADE: Well, the first part of 


identification would be with NIOSH. Can you 


say, can you answer that question on these or 


others? And then if you can, fine. SC&A 


might offer a critique. 


DR. ZIEMER: Why did the revision even 


occur. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I can say for OCAS 


TIB-0008 that the revision occurred because of 


the findings from the earlier procedure 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

revision only addressed the findings in the 


procedure, and hence the grammatical 


corrections. I can say that about TIB-0008. 


I can say that because I revised it. I can’t 


say the same thing about six and seven because 


I wasn’t the person who revised it. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I’m speaking generically 


though. I’m not saying you’ve got to tell us 


that now. Maybe as we go forward to think 


about when a revision is done, why is it being 


done. Is it in response to findings? Is it 


because, or both? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it may be both. I 


mean there’s usually, on a revised procedure 


there’s a record of changes page that 


describes the change and the origin of the 


change. And I’m pretty sure on TIB-0008 it 


says to respond to comments raised by the 


Advisory Board. So it may say that and to 


correct other things. You may get something 


that says that at some point. Now TIB-0008 


won’t say that because the changes were 


strictly addressed to findings from the 


procedures work group. So, I mean, we can 


tell you, but at some point there will be some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

judgment call about other changes that are 


either important or not. 


 DR. WADE: And possibly a vehicle to suggest 


to the work group is possibly on a call 


between NIOSH and SC&A, you could look at 


these issues and decide collectively if you 


think it’s a TIB based upon, a modification 


based upon the review or if it’s in essence a 


modification based on other things and then a 


new TIB to be considered for review. Whatever 


you guys decide would guide the process. 


DR. MAURO: This precedent, this is exactly 


what we did with regard to the Savannah River 


site profile review where the nature of the 


re-issuance was of a substantive nature, and 


we actually decided let’s not make the review 


of this new version of the Savannah River a 


continuation of the close-out process, but 


let’s make it an actual site profile review. 


I think it will be very helpful to us 


if we can make, when we are given direction 


such as the direction we’re receiving now by 


either the working group or the Board, some 


judgment be made as best we can whether we 


want to call this just a continuation of close 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

out or if this is something that really is new 


work for Fiscal Year 2008. 


MS. MUNN: Can we task NIOSH and SC&A with 


getting together offline on these three OTIBs 


that are going to be forwarded to you when 


they’re complete to ascertain exactly what the 


correct approach is? 


DR. ZIEMER: One we know already. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, we know eight’s --


MR. HINNEFELD: Eight was strictly to 


address the findings. 


MS. MUNN: Simple findings. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I mean, if we can do that, 


who should we call? Who should I call? 


DR. MAURO: For Task 3? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: You can call me. 


At that point in the process by the 


way, the sort of close-out protocol, let’s say 


there’s an appreciation between NIOSH and SC&A 


on which old procedures have now been really 


closed out and which ones really represent a 


need for new review. At that point do I 


inform Lew that, yes, here’s a table. We’ll 


have them in a table that says here’s the way 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

we see it as far as the list of procedures 


that really constitute a new review and more 


appropriately assigned to us as part of Fiscal 


Year 2008 which my understanding means 


something that we have to be authorized by the 


full Board. 


 DR. WADE: I would inform the Chair of the 


working group, possibly all members of the 


working group and me. And then, again, the 


work group can take that up at the next, at 


its next sitting as to whether or not it wants 


to say add that as a new one of the 30 for 


next year. 


MS. MUNN: I would hope that that list would 


be the result of your previous discussion with 


NIOSH already so that we wouldn’t be having to 


inquire have you both talked about this. 


DR. MAURO: No, this will be an active 


dialogue that we will maintain. 


MS. MUNN: Excellent, so that will be a 


slight change in our process. In the future 


that’s the way we’ll deal with these issues, 


okay? 


Kathy, does that meet your concerns? 


 (no response) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

MS. MUNN: Kathy, are you still there? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, I’m still 


here. I’m sorry. I couldn’t find my mute 


button. That’s fine. That is fine. Yes, it 


does meet my concerns. Thank you. 


MS. MUNN: Very good. Thanks. 


Last item on our carry-over list for 


NIOSH. Update Schedule 2 to indicate all 


completed matrix items. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Schedule 2 being what 


exactly? 


DR. ZIEMER: Was it Table 2? 


MS. MUNN: Was it Table 2? Was it Schedule 


2? Could it have been Table 2? 


 DR. WADE: ^ this nomenclature. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, this nomenclature is doing 


it to us again. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Is that it? I couldn’t 


understand exactly what I was doing here 


unless that meant to on the, put as much 


information as we had on the Supplement 1 


matrix finding. 


MS. MUNN: Didn’t we have a section that was 


identified as Table 2? 


DR. ZIEMER: We have a Table 2. I don’t 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

know if we have a Schedule 2. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy. 


It almost appears to me that that’s referring 


to Table 2 of the document that we discussed 


first thing this morning because that last 


column, the Resolved column, I had not 


completed all of the items in that column. 


Perhaps that’s what we’re referring to in this 


item. 


MS. MUNN: Well, I thought that was a 


different action item, Kathy. I thought we 


had captured that in our expectations of SC&A. 


I thought this was an action item for NIOSH. 


I may have to go back during our extended 


lunch hour and take a look at my notes to see 


precisely what we were aiming for. My own 


notation was too cryptic. I’ll check it, and 


we’ll cover that after lunch. 


 DR. WADE: Excellent resolution. 


MS. MUNN: It now being 12:30, let us 


adjourn for lunch. There is some concern 


about the amount of work that has to be done 


over this lunch period. Let’s do extend the 


lunch hour an extra half hour so that instead 


of returning at 1:30, let’s return at two. We 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

will reconvene at two o’clock --


DR. MAURO: Before we close, Kathy, are you 


still on the line? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, I’m here. 


DR. MAURO: I just wanted to ask you a 


question. Is it possible for SC&A with Kathy 


on the line to use this room to do our 


business during the lunch break? 


 DR. WADE: If you are comfortable with that, 


it’s certainly fine with us. 


DR. MAURO: I appreciate it. 


Kathy, are you available to work with 


us through lunch? 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yes, that’s 


fine. 


DR. MAURO: Thank you very much. 


DR. ZIEMER: Do you have a public call-in 


number? 


DR. MAURO: Kathy, we’ll call you back 


separately. This way it’s limited to the SC&A 

--

 DR. WADE: But you can use this room and 

that machine. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): That’s fine. 


John, do you have my phone number? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: We’re going to break the line now 


and re-establish contact a few minutes before 


2:00 p.m. central standard time. 


(Whereupon, a lunch break was taken from 


12:30 p.m. until 2:00 p.m.) 


MS. MUNN: Let’s come back to order, please. 


 DR. WADE: We’ve also been admiring the work 


of whoever’s typing on the other end of the 


phone. We hear what we think is typewriter 


noise. Haven’t heard that for a long time. 


MS. MUNN: And there are some of us who 


really appreciate that more than others, I 


think. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we’re back in session. 


MS. MUNN: The first thing I need to do is 


to let all of you know that I was not 


successful in identifying exactly what 


Schedule 2 was. My personal notes which were 


taken at the last meeting did not get to 


Naperville with me. They are in some other 


file some other place so I can’t identify 


precisely when and about what this particular 


item was. So we’re going to let NIOSH off the 


hook and not ask them to report on something 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126 

that we can’t identify what is. 


RESULTS OF NOON DISCUSSIONS
 

And we’ll move on to -- if it’s all 


right with those involved -- the results of 


our discussions at noon while they’re still 


fresh in everyone’s mind. Is someone going to 


tell us? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Kathy, do you want to go 


over the titles of the things or should I --


So for the titles of the reviews we 


thought that we would call them Task 3, First 


Set of Procedure Reviews; Task 3, Second Set 


of Procedure Reviews along the line that we 


discussed. And we thought that we could break 


up the matrix into two portions. One would be 


a very summary thing that you could see the 


status of everything almost at a glance. 


So it would be a summary matrix 


presented much in the manner, but there 


wouldn’t be the discussions there. It would 


just be the procedure number, finding number, 


review objective, rating, a brief description 


of what the finding is, so probably one or two 


lines, and then whether it’s active or closed. 


And whatever is closed it would be highlighted 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127 

so then you don’t go to see the detail. 


And then for each finding there would 


be a page that, each of those findings would 


have a page, and probably we could identify 


the page number up there or something like 


that. And the page header would have the 


procedure number, finding number, page 


numbers, and then it would be divided into two 


pieces. One is the review process and then 


the close-out working group process, review 


objective, the rating, the full statement of 


the finding and the full statement of the 


NIOSH response. 


And then the second piece of that on 


the same page would be the close-out working 


group or working group process. Working group 


number one, meeting date, the discussion about 


that finding and its status, if the working 


group has asked anything to happen. You know, 


NIOSH is going to do X, Y or Z. Or SC&A is 


going to do X, Y or Z. 


And then if an item is closed as there 


was agreement on something, then it would 


simply say SC&A and NIOSH agree. Working 


group closes out the item. And then we just 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128 

enter closed in the summary and highlight that 


as a closed item. 


If it goes on, if there are action 


items, then we simply go to the next working 


group meeting and repeat this until it’s 


closed. And that way we have more of a sense 


of the timing and progression of the 


discussion. We have a log of when the 


discussion happened and a little bit more 


substantive. 


And it doesn’t get carried on in long 


columns that are very narrow and maybe going 


through many pages and most of them empty. So 


we thought we would suggest that it could be 


split into two pieces this way. And there’d 


be one page like this for each finding. 


MS. MUNN: The Chair is taken aback. My 


first feeling is that this looks more 


complicated than what we’re doing now, but 


perhaps it’s because I’m not understanding 


fully exactly how this is going to work. 


Let’s see how other members of our working 


group react to that. 


Paul. 


DR. ZIEMER: As I understand it you would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

have a summary matrix at the front end so you 


would have the overall picture. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, all of what you had 


would be condensed into --


DR. ZIEMER: And then the details of the 


findings and so on which are what takes up the 


space on the present matrix. There would be a 


particular page that you would go to. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It would be a lot like the 


checklist in the procedure review itself. 


There’s a checklist, and whenever there’s any 


discussion, whenever the rating’s other than 


five, it doesn’t give the discussion right 


there. It says see review objective and then 


you just go down and you see the review 


objective and then the discussion there. So I 


think this actually follows what we do 


internally in the procedure. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Now is that going to be on the 


same page as what you have come up with a 


finding procedure and a number and a finding. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: This will have a lot of 


different lines. 


 MR. PRESLEY: See, that’s my problem. 


You’re going to have to go over to another 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

page just to --


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, that is the 


disadvantage of this. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy, 


and Wanda, I fully agree. We’ve also come up 


with an alternative to the format that we 


currently have which was my first suggestion. 


The reason that we are toying with the idea of 


going to this one-page issue -- and, John, 


maybe you can explain this a little bit better 


than I can -- is John felt that it was 


important that we capture what happened in 


each of the various working groups with each 


of our findings. 


I believe that John has been tasked in 


the past with trying to recreate what has 


happened at the various working group levels 


and determining when was that finding 


ultimately resolved. And so that’s how this 


evolved. And it’s very, very different than 


we’ve suggested in the past. We’re just, I 


believe there needs to be a little bit of 


discussion up front as to why we thought that 


this might be something we’d want to 


entertain. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

And as I said it had to do mostly with 


John’s feeling, so much goes on at each of 


these working group meetings, and it maybe 


isn’t always appropriately captured, and we 


can’t go back and recreate what has happened 


each segment along the way. So that’s how 


this evolved. And so just with that in mind 


you can possibly have further discussions 


that’ll be more meaningful. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you, Kathy. 


Paul. 


DR. ZIEMER: Could you go to the second 


page, please, and clarify for us on the close 


out part two there, so let’s say that we took 


some action today on some item here. And next 


time we came back we weren’t satisfied with 


that, whatever it was that was to be done. So 


what would happen here? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: We would have these two 


repeated. 


DR. ZIEMER: Would repeat, so you would 


have, I see, so you would have kind of a 


running tab of what occurred each meeting or 


if it was continued. That’s what you’re --


DR. MAKHIJANI: For example, just to take 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

the procedure four, five, 17 thing, we’d say 


working group meeting date. We’d go back to 


the old one and we’d say what happened. A 


certain review process was left open at that 


time. What was left open. And then in the 


next one, today, that these three things were, 


these three procedures were consolidated into 


Procedure-90, and then the to-do list was for 


SC&A to give you the list of open and closed 


items for that. And then we’d also, of 


course, go back and have all of the items in 


summary form here. 


DR. ZIEMER: We’d have the instructions on 


each one as to --


DR. MAKHIJANI: You would have the 


instructions as well. And then when it’s 


closed, when the working group decides that 


it’s closed or the Board decides it’s closed ­

-


DR. ZIEMER: I do like that feature that it 


does sort of contain what’s supposed to happen 


on each one. 


DR. MAURO: You see, when you look at the 


matrix, you find out that there’s a part of 


the process that’s right now, SC&A writes a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

big report. We take a matrix. We put in in 


summary form SC&A’s findings. And then 


there’s no involvement with the working group 


yet. It goes over to NIOSH. Then NIOSH 


responds to the findings. So that’s going to 


happen. 


DR. ZIEMER: That’s set. 


DR. MAURO: What happens once that’s in 


place, that triggers the working group. Then 


we move into the mode of the working group and 


what happens in the working group. What 


became clear is that what happens is we go 


through, we have a discussion on each issue, 


and we try to capture the nature of the 


discussion we had earlier and the degree to 


which SC&A and NIOSH have come to resolution 


on this issue. 


And you listen, the working group 


listens to that conversation and try to 


capture whether there’s a degree of agreement 


or disagreement. But at some point in the 


process the working group weighs in and says, 


okay, I think this issue has been resolved and 


then it ends. Or I think that, well, you may 


give marching orders to SC&A or to NIOSH and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

that’s going to be stated here. And those 


marching orders are given here to be addressed 


at the next working group meeting for whatever 


the action is. 


And then if there is the need for 


another working group meeting, this page will 


continue, and there’ll be a date when the 


working group will meet, and we’ll just do it 


again until we reach the point where the 


working group says this issue is closed. And 


then that brings us back to the matrix table. 


The matrix table, that issue would 


have a one-liner and either be active or 


closed. And right on that one page you’ll 


know how many issues there are, and how many 


of them have been closed or are active. And 


that would be available for every working 


group meeting. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I also here it might say, 


like today we’ve got a matrix in which NIOSH 


has responded to some item with ^ active close 


of NIOSH response pending so then you have to 


go to the pages that are active. 


DR. MAURO: This came about because recently 


I was asked to help out in trying to help 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

folks get a handle on the number of matrix 


tables, the number of -- this had to do with 


the site profile work, not with this -- but on 


the site profiles clearly there were a series 


of working group meetings and then a series of 


matrices. 


And the reality is I had a very 


difficult time, the only reason I was able to 


resurrect the working group meeting dates was 


that on my calendar I put in a mark on my 


calendar, plus on my progress reports, they go 


back four years, I do indicate on the progress 


report that, yes, last month we had a working 


group meeting. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able 


to do that. And I think it’s essential that 


we’re able to reconstruct. This is where the 


important, the rubber meets the road. 


And I think in this form forever we 


will have an archive of what we have 


accomplished; what we’ve done. You’re right. 


It may become, some of these may go on for 


many pages. Some issues go on for -- for 


example, on Rocky Flats I think we have 


something like ten or 12 working group 


meetings to cover one particular issue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. ZIEMER: But there would be --


basically, what you have is a worksheet on 


every issue, and you can see the progress. 


Right now on issues I find myself doing what 


you described, going back to different minutes 


in different documents and pieces of paper and 


trying to piece things together. 


This seems to me if we can preserve 


the matrix in the overall summary, I think the 


worksheets would be helpful to us in any event 


to have a worksheet per issue and be able to 


say, yes, we did this. Here’s the outcome. 


Here’s the next thing we did until it comes to 


closure. That, it seems to me, would be 


helpful. I know it’s, could end up to be a 


thick document, but in reality as I go into 


these and start to try to pull all these other 


documents out, I think I end up in the same 


place but less organized. 


DR. MAURO: I would argue that it’s going to 


be thinner because most of the documents we 


have now space. We have one column that goes 


on for four pages and the rest of the page is 


space. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137

 DR. WADE: So, John, now in terms of the 


need to see active items versus archived 


items, this first matrix would have it all? 


DR. MAURO: Well, it would, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: So you’ll have to pick out then 


from five pages of matrices, you’ll have to, 


entries, you’ll have to pick out the active 


item. 


DR. MAURO: On this one page, all of the, in 


other words every procedure and finding would 


be here, maybe two pages. But you’ll know for 


each one of the findings whether that finding 


is active or closed. Now they’ll all be back 


here, but if it’s been closed, you don’t have 


to go to that one. 


In other words the only ones that, 


right off the bat, the first, we’ll meet. 


We’ll sit down around the table. This page 


will come up which we’ll say, okay, here’s 


where we are. Look down the list and say, 


okay, out of the 30, 40 or 50 findings that 


originally comprised the work of this working 


group, we have closed half of them, but the 


other half are still active. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so how many pages this one 

1 -- 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

DR. MAURO: This would, one or two pages. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, it would be more 


because right now we’ve 30 procedures, you 


know, in the matrix. 


 DR. WADE: With two, three, four findings. 


DR. MAURO: So yeah, maybe three, four, 


five, but these are going to be, in effect, I 


was hoping that we could make each one of 


these one line. But what’s going to happen is 


we felt that we did need to put in like a one-


liner of what the finding was, otherwise you 


wouldn’t know what it was about. So at least 


something that says, oh, this is the high-


fired plutonium issue. That’s all it would 


say, high-fired plutonium issue, and so at 


least we know what that is. But we don’t try 


to do anything on this first page to discuss 


it. It’ll be just an identifier. 


 DR. WADE: So we might have eight pages. 


The matrix might be eight pages, but you can 


clearly identify opened issues from closed 


issues. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, let’s say there are a 


hundred items. That’d be a hundred lines. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

And a hundred lines, how many pages that would 


take. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): This is Kathy 


Behling. I believe one of the other things we 


may want to consider here is on the dose 


reconstruction matrices for the first three 


sets -- and, Dr. Ziemer, you can correct me if 


I’m wrong here -- but I believe that the 


matrix is what was sent to the Secretary of 


HHS. And I’m not sure for someone who hasn’t 


been sitting through this process that those 


matrices are really going to really tell the 


full story and give him a good understanding 


as to what went on in this process where what 


we’re suggesting here is if this was sent to 


the Secretary of HHS as a sort of final 


product, it may be more meaningful. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: One of the things that might 


make it logistically easier to have a page 


number here, and you could probably do it in 


the soft copy in such a way that you could 


just click on it, and it would go to a page 


number or something like that. 


MS. MUNN: Page number of what? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Page number where you would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

find that, the detail of that finding. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, Paul. 


DR. ZIEMER: I have an additional thought 


here but let me insert, I don’t think we would 


be sending this report to the Secretary. We 


do report to the Secretary on the dose 


reconstruction because of a specific charge 


that we have, but this is something internal 


to the Board. 


Here’s another thought though. 


Suppose you had two such documents. One is 


the closed ones. You have the matrix of all 


closed items with the attached. And that 


changes you see from meeting to meeting. As 


you close items it changes. 


And then you have a matrix of open 


items with the working attachment so that 


you’re not having to sit through these and so 


on. Because even if it’s closed, there’s a 


history that you might want to access readily. 


So there’s another thought. It’s a variation 


on this, closed items, open items. 


 DR. WADE: Or all items opened items. I 


mean you could have a matrix of everything, 


and then extract from that open items. And 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

then the working group would say this is what 


we have to work with. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: There are a few ways that 


that could be handled. I think we could 


consolidate all the open items at the top of 


the matrix, this summary matrix. So then you 


only in the beginning are looking at the open 


items. And then you could take the detail on 


the closed items and put them at the bottom at 


the end of the document. So everything that’s 


open that’s in the front of the document. 


Everything that’s closed --


 DR. WADE: That splits up findings in a 


particular procedure. I just think maybe a 


set up so you extract the open items and make 


a sub-matrix. 


DR. MAURO: It becomes a working document 


for the purpose of this meeting so that here 


is what our work is for today. 


DR. ZIEMER: I hate to monopolize this, but 


things are popping in my mind. I’m wondering 


if it would be worth doing this on a sort of a 


trial or pilot plan basis for the next work 


group meeting to have the contractor bring us 


the material in that form and try it out. We 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

may find that it’s cumbersome. We might find 


out it’s more efficient. I don’t know. 


I’m just wondering if it’s worth 


giving it a trial to see how it works. 


Because I think we still want to preserve the 


matrix idea and the idea of being able to see 


everything sort of the overview which is, I 


think, what the Chair would certainly want us 


to be able to do. 


MS. MUNN: That’s very true. 


DR. ZIEMER: But I like the idea of the 


worksheets has a certain attraction for me at 


least. 


MS. MUNN: Being each of us creatures of our 


past history and our own personal experience, 


I cannot help but wince at the clerical effort 


that I foresee as being inherent in this kind 


of undertaking. It really is even with all of 


the material digitalized and an ability to 


move it around, this is not a trivial issue to 


break this information up in this way. 


DR. MAURO: I find this is going to make 


life so much easier for everyone concerned 


because it’s going to be just adding on the 


next working group meeting, the next working 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

group meeting. It’s just going to add on on 


any given issue. It’s going to just keep 


rolling. 


And at any time you want, if you want 


to go back to a particular issue whether it’s 


the oronasal breathing issue, if we track this 


way of high-fired. That’s an issue. It has a 


page, and we can find out how it was resolved. 


And you could just see. The whole story would 


be right there in front of you rather than at 


the end of the process. 


For example, right now let’s say we 


all wanted to get together and say, geez, how 


did we resolve the high-fired plutonium issue. 


How did it begin and what was done by NIOSH, 


the working group, the Board and SC&A to reach 


closure, which we have reached. I would say 


we’d be hard pressed right now to try to --


without going back to reading all the minutes, 


all the transcripts that Ray put together --


so we would be able to rebuild that. With 


this thing I would say five minutes you would 


see the whole story right in front of you. 


MS. MUNN: Oh, once it’s set up and 


operating very possibly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

DR. MAURO: We’re doing it anyway. You 


realize we’re doing it anyway. As a result of 


each meeting together working with the 


chairperson and NIOSH and SC&A, we do try to 


build a matrix. 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


DR. MAURO: And the information is being 


assembled and put into some form. So we have 


to do it anyway, and in my mind let’s do it in 


a systematic way that’s in one place that’s 


there forever. So the work is going to be 


done anyway. 


MS. MUNN: Did I not hear somewhere in the 


discussion that the resolution issue, whether 


it occurs in this body or in one of the other 


work groups is proposed to be incorporated in 


some way? 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, it will be in the 


summary and also in the detailed worksheet. 


DR. MAURO: In that discussion section, you 


know, in other words on each sheet there’s a 


discussion and the outcome might be issue 


closed because it’s being dealt with ^. On 


the last stop if you end that issue because it 


has moved to a generic issue, for example, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

let’s say oronasal breathing, it moves to 


that. Well, that would be, that’s how that 


issue would have been resolved and for that 


reason. And that would be the bridge to some 


other activity, some other working group. 


MS. MUNN: Certainly the idea of having a 


single matrix that shows what’s open and 


what’s closed is more than attractive. 


DR. MAURO: The point you just bring up 


though to tell you the truth is that it may 


not be as simple as active or closed for the 


reason you just said. Something might be 


closed under Task 3 because we moved that out 


of Task 3 and put it into some other task 


because it’s part of the site profile issue or 


a generic issue. So we may actually have to 


have three labeled, in other words, active 


within Task 3, closed or it’s been moved out. 


MS. MUNN: Transferred. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, it’s been transferred. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, transferred. 


 DR. WADE: And to deal with the whole 


universe now while it’s on our mind to me the 


only eventual solution to this is a relational 


database that would have everything in it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

DR. MAURO: We were talking about an ACCESS 


or a Sequal database that in theory could 


actually link into the minutes of the meeting. 


I mean if you really want to get off the 


charts on it, but we can do that. That’s very 


aggressive. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, and I wouldn’t do it. I 


wouldn’t dismiss it. You see, what Wanda and 


I have always wanted, and we’ve talked about 


this to each other and not to each other about 


this, if you close something here, and it goes 


to the science issue column, there needs to be 


a guarantee that it’s gone there and is there 


as opposed to what happens now. And if it 


goes to the site profile, a particular site 


profile, it needs to go with certainty. And 


the only way to make that happen is to have it 


within an overall data system. 


DR. MAURO: We really haven’t created those 


cross-links between tasks. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s true. So when we say 


closed, it’s just closed for here. NIOSH is 


revising the site profile then it comes back. 


DR. MAURO: Let’s say we’re transferring --


MS. MUNN: Transferred to where. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

DR. MAURO: -- but we’re saying it’s got to 


hook, that’s got to activate some other part 


of the system. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: So that’s something we need to 


think about. And it comes to all of us. I 


know Larry and I have talked about it as well. 


How do we get that done? For the Board really 


to be certain that it hasn’t dropped anything 


between the floorboards that sort of linked 


data system is necessary. For another day. 


MS. MUNN: Let’s suggest that the contractor 


put together the suggested summary matrix for 


what timeframe? 


DR. MAURO: I could say we can do this very 


quickly. Whenever you want. All the 

information is here. 

DR. MAKHIJANI: Which one? The one that 

we’re working with now? 

MS. MUNN: We’re talking about the summary 


matrix of what we have on matrices currently. 


The procedures. 


DR. MAURO: We’ll work with the one we’re 


working with right now. We’ll try that. 


DR. ZIEMER: Put it in this form? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

DR. MAURO: This form. 


MS. MUNN: Try putting in that form and see 


how it looks, and we’ll spend a significant 


amount of time at our December meeting 


discussing whether or not this does, in fact, 


meet our criteria, whether it will be simpler, 


whether the time element is reasonable, and 


whether this fulfills the archival concerns 


that all of us have with respect to what we’ve 


done. Is that agreeable with everyone? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Question. Where do we get 


money for this? Have we got money to do this 


extra work? 


 DR. WADE: I believe we do. I mean, I don’t 


know how big --


DR. ZIEMER: I wouldn’t regard it as extra 


work. I think they’re doing the work now. 


It’s a way of sorting it in a more consistent 


manner. And you may spend a little time 


initially setting up, but it’s like you pretty 


much have it defined now, and you type it in. 


DR. MAURO: And this is the right time to 


begin it because we’re, really, even though we 


did have one previous meeting regarding this 


matrix, we’re on top of this so it’s the right 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149 

time to try this out. This is the right set 


of cases, this Supplement -- I don’t know the 


supplement number. I don’t recall --


Supplement 1 which is the one with 30 cases. 


This is the right time to try this out. To 


convert from this matrix to that is very easy 


to do. It’s just going to look different, but 


it’s going, it basically contained it in a way 


that I think will serve us all better. 


 DR. WADE: And then as a special request I 


would make of you, when you do this, and then 


when you present it, I would like to be able 


to ask you your thoughts about expanding this 


beyond to the linkage of work products. I 


don’t want you to do anything about it, but 


just as your people do this, I’d like you to 


think about that. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Wanda, this is 


Kathy Behling. Also one of the other things 


that I might just suggest is, because this 


will not take me much time at all, but to take 


the current matrix that we’re working from and 


modify this to some extent as you had 


initially tasked us to do. We talked about 


maybe adding a column and changing some names 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

of some columns to make them more meaningful. 


And also present that as an alternative in 


case we decide that it is too cumbersome to do 


this approach we’re suggesting today. 


MS. MUNN: That would be helpful if it won’t 


be too time consuming for you, Kathy. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): No, not at all. 


MS. MUNN: That’s good if you would. 


MS. BEHLING (by Telephone): Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Now the next thing. Do we 


need -- I realize that we are going to task 


the contractor to do this, but do we need 


anybody from NIOSH to look at this to see if 


they can live with the format and stuff like 


this? Because they’re going to have to work 


with it along with us. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I’ve got no issue with 


this. It seems like it probably adds 


readability in the historical base. The one 


question that comes to my mind as I’m sitting 


here is for lack of a better term, version 


control. For instance, we’ll have, now I 


think it’ll be one document with this table on 


the front and supporting sheets behind in one 


document. So there will be times when NIOSH 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

will add information to some of those 


supporting sheets, but not all. And I don’t 


suppose we would ever change this table. This 


table would only be changed by the work group 


to active, closed or transfer. That would be 


a work group action. We’ll be adding to the 


document in that we add to the supporting. So 


presumably then the date, you know, we might 


have a current date so everybody knows they’re 


current. So the document then would be re-


dated or a new revised date each time anybody 


writes to it. The additional issue is that we 


will write to it. SC&A will write to it, and 


the Board essentially will write to it. So 


that we will have three different entities 


generating a next version of the document, 


maybe simultaneously. SC&A may be working, we 


may provide some, as we are wont to do, we 


will provide initial responses on some 


findings but not all. And SC&A may be 


analyzing and reaching conclusions on those 


initial responses while we continue to work on 


other initial responses. So I think there may 


be a way to do this with naming conventions or 


something like that so that the origin of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

152 

document, not just the date of the document, 


but the organization that prepared this 


version of the document occurs in the name, 


the file name in some fashion. And I don’t 


know if you want to think about that or not, 


but it occurs to me that it’s going to be 


very, very difficult. It already is. The 


reason I bring this up it’s already sometimes 


difficult for me to keep track of what is the 


most recent version. 


MS. MUNN: It is very difficult. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And how we get on there --


MR. HINNEFELD: But I think if we just think 


about it as we design it and include some 


things like that, and whether it’s in a file 


name or whether it’s in a header of some sort, 


however it works easiest to build it. And I’m 


not a Word person so I’m not very good at 


offering advice at what would be best. But 


something like that to keep track of when I 


pick up one of these things, what exactly am I 


looking at. Am I looking at our product or am 


I looking at SC&A’s most recent contribution 


or the Board’s most recent determination or 


something like that? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

MS. MUNN: What would appear to be the 


simplest method of doing that would be to 


simply identify as we currently are in the 


bottom right-hand corner of each page the date 


and who is issuing it. If we do that then it 


will be very clear that any change --


DR. NETON: I might suggest that --


MS. MUNN: Yes, Jim. 


DR. NETON: -- I’m not a computer person, 


but putting this on a central drive like the O 


drive I think would take care of a lot of 


these issues where it exists in a central 


location where only one person can open it at 


a time. It’s always there and always 


resident. And I think that would help. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We’d have to do that. If not, 


if you’re not then we’re going to be sitting 


there looking at that thing every day trying 


to figure out who added what to this. 


DR. NETON: Every time you open it, you know 


you’re opening the most recent version and 


only one person can add, writes at a time to 


that document. 


 MR. PRESLEY: If SC&A adds something today, 


and NIOSH adds something today, and we don’t 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154 

know to go back in there and look at that, 


something’s got to trigger for us to go back 


in there because I assure you I don’t want to 


have to sit and look at this matrix every day 


just to see if there’s something extra came up 


on it. 


MS. MUNN: John. 


DR. MAURO: I’m looking at it a little 


different. This thing is revised after every 


working group meeting. It’s revised in a 


collaborative way between SC&A, NIOSH and the 


chairman of the working group. And it’s put 


out by the chairman of the working group. 


Okay, here is the next revision that reflects 


the last meeting we just had. Now once that’s 


done it’s done, and it’s not revised again, 


not touched again, until the next working 


group meeting was completed. So therefore, 


there’s nothing going on. Now, it may turn 


out between the two working groups, there 


might be other white papers going back and 


forth. There might be all sorts of stuff 


going back and forth on the O drive. Nothing 


to do with this form. That’s work that’s 


going on perhaps to resolve an issue, but it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

doesn’t emerge and that activity doesn’t show 


up until the next working group meeting where 


we have a chance to talk about this work. So 


in effect, there’s going to be an issue of 


this revision of one of these after, within a 


matter of days. 


MS. MUNN: Following each work group. 


DR. MAURO: Each working group and that’s 


it. After it’s issued it’s done, untouched 


until the next working group. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s not quite right, 


John. NIOSH is, after this working group 


meeting, NIOSH is going to fill in a lot of 


those blanks in this where they haven’t had a 


response yet. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We can do it in some other 


format. For instance, we don’t have to write 


it directly on the document. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That’s true. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We could, you know, we can 


restate, it’s easy to cut and paste the 


finding and put it on a piece of paper, a new 


sheet, and write the response there. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, a multiplicity of 


documents in that case. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156 

MR. HINNEFELD: That means there’s a lot 


more stuff flying around. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: That I think will create a 


kind of problem of its own because then you’ve 


got huge numbers of documents because there 


are so many issues. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I like Jim’s idea about doing 


this. 


MR. HINNEFELD: ^ O drive. 


MS. MUNN: Paul, you were trying to say 


something. 


DR. NETON: We all have the same O drive. 


They get transferred. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I’m a little concerned 


about having anyone go in and make changes. 


MS. MUNN: I am, too. 


DR. ZIEMER: Because in principle while we 


trust each other, but who knows what could, 


sometimes my computer seems to change things 


and I don’t even know why. I’m typing and I 


find that something else has, I’ve changed 


something. I’m a little concerned about 


anyone going into the O drive and fiddling 


with the document. So I kind of like the 


idea, and maybe we can do it through the chair 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

of the work group. If the ball is in NIOSH’s 


court, let’s say. Let’s say they got the SC&A 


response version and we’re waiting for the 


NIOSH responses for the next meeting. We 


would want to have that in advance, and it 


seems to me that whoever’s going to be 


responsible for entering it, whether it’s the 


contractor or the chair or NIOSH, we have them 


enter the new stuff and assign the new number 


or whatever the new identity is, and that gets 


distributed. And that’s it until the next 


meeting. Something like that. I just don’t 


like the idea that anybody can go in and 


change something. 


DR. MAURO: What’s split up, and I agree 


with this is that, okay, at the end of this 


meeting we put a product out. That’s pretty 


straightforward. And that will be under your 


direction, and you put out a new version of 


the matrix. There’s a new matrix. 


Now, but then as a result of the 


direction provided by the working group, 


you’ve given NIOSH and SC&A, let’s say, some 


marching orders. And we start to work, and we 


do some work, right? And the question becomes 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

-- and let’s say SC&A puts out a white paper, 


and you folks put out a white paper. It goes 


up on the O drive or whatever we do. 


The question is when does that 


information, the outcome of that exchange find 


its way into the matrix? Do you try to do 


that before the next working group meeting? I 


mean, I guess that’s a good question. In 


other words whether we, and if we do it, how 


is that mechanistically done? 


 DR. WADE: So I think the way to do it if I 


could offer an opinion, I mean, I think you 


freeze the matrix at certain points in time, 


but people can post comments to it that can 


exist, they don’t change the matrix. 


So let’s say after a work group 


meeting, it’s put out. This is the situation. 


NIOSH has certain tasks. SC&A has certain 


tasks. You post those at the appropriate 


place in the matrix, but you don’t change the 


matrix. Then they’re there for people to look 


at as you will leading up to another Board 


meeting when then again, the chair can decide 


what changes will actually be made to the 


matrix. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

159 

And you could have a document that’s 


frozen in time with a layer on top of that of 


transient information that’s captured there 


but not added until the gatekeeper makes that 


decision. 


DR. ZIEMER: Can I ask is that then posted 


in a different color or a different font or 


something so we can identify it? 


 DR. WADE: Sure. 


DR. ZIEMER: And then once it’s approved 


it’s changed or --


 DR. WADE: The system I’ve worked with is 


color. You choose the color red, and that’s 


there, transient, but it’s not entered into 


the frozen version of the document. 


MS. MUNN: We seem to be falling into the 


problem of spending 85 percent of our time 


talking about 15 percent of our problem. We 


really don’t want to do that for much longer. 


May I suggest that it might be a good idea for 


us to set up a telephone conference between 


whoever wants to be the decision or needs to 


be the decision maker in NIOSH, whoever needs 


to be the decision maker about this at SC&A, 


perhaps Bob, perhaps me get together on a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160 

telephone conference and talk about this after 


SC&A has had an opportunity to put together 


the first page of a draft format, and we’ll 


address this specific issue of who makes 


changes when and how does that mechanistically 


occur. Does that make sense to everybody? 


Can we do that? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: At the end of this meeting we’ll 


set up a time for a telephone group meeting, 


and we’ll identify who’s going to be on the 


call. Then we will bring that as a part of 


the straw man first trial to the Board either 


at the, I mean to the working group either at 


the working group’s meeting, telephone meeting 


which we may be able to do or not or at our 


face-to-face meeting in December, one of the 


two. 


MAJOR PROCEDURES LIST
 

All right, we have our major 


procedures list, Summary of Task 3, Supplement 


1, Rev. 1, Revised Draft, September 25, 2007, 


that I asked you to have in hand that we have 


not yet addressed as an item-by-item issue for 


what has been provided by NIOSH following our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161 

last meeting. We need to go through that, and 


we need to make sure in the process of doing 


that that we’re going to catch, was it 19 that 


we said we were going back and pick up? 


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s 33, I think. 


MS. MUNN: Thirty-three probably. So who’s 


going to take the lead on these new items, and 


where do you want to begin? I see the first 


one is OTIB-0023 on page eight. Am I 


mistaken? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, we’re talking about, are 


we on OTIB-0023, assignment of missed neutron 


doses based on dosimeter records? Is that 


where we are? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, OTIB-0023, we have items 


one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, 


eight. All have responses to them now, and 


what we’re expecting is a word from SC&A as to 


whether the NIOSH response is agreeable or for 


some reason leaves you with a continuing, 


outstanding issue. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I guess I will 


take that issue on. This is Hans Behling. My 


comments, I guess, reflect a number of things 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162 

that involve the differences between OTIB-0023 


and the Implementation Guide-001. 


And I think it’s kind of difficult to 


gather from the summarized comments on the 


matrix what the issues are because we’d almost 


have to go back to the report itself, and I 


used some quotes directly. And I guess 


central to the issue is one in which we define 


reliable dosimeters for neutron monitoring and 


unreliable. 


And I think therein lies the problem 


because the OTIB-0023 really is limited to 


instances where we are dealing with what are 


called reliable neutron dosimeters which on my 


estimation reflect perhaps the albedo badge 


that was introduced in the early ‘70s in most 


of the DOE locations although that’s not 


necessarily the case in certain locations 


where NTA film was, in fact, viewed as a 


reliable neutron dosimeter. 


And most of the issues center around, 


I guess, the alternative approaches in which 


case the OTIB-0023 really is confined to those 


instances where we are dealing with a viable 


dosimeter, and the issue is one of assigning 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

163 

either N times L over D over two as opposed to 


some other alternative method in the event 


that that particular ^ ends up with a dose 


that is greater than 75 percent of the 


external whole body from penetrating gamma 


radiation. 


And I think we have a significant 


conflict between TIB-0023 and Implementation 


Guide-02 because they have very different 


opinions in terms of what is to be used under 


those conditions. I think Implementation 


Guide-002 is not confined to necessarily best 


estimates or not confined to instances where 


you’re dealing with a credible neutron 


dosimeter of record. And I think most of 


these issues center around that difference 


between the two documents. And the OTIB-0023 


does, in fact, reference the Implementation 


Guide-002 as its basic document. 


And just one of the comments that I do 


want to make, you said, for instance, when the 


neutron dose defined by N times L over D over 


two exceeds the 0.75 or 75 percent of the 


gamma dose, there is a recommendation to make 


use of neutron survey data in state times and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

other things which I have come to the 


conclusion is not likely to be available for 


most instances when you’re dealing with a 


person who may have been exposed to neutrons 


but obviously in his personal dosimetry 


package, there won’t be any reference to that 


kind of the data. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess from our 


standpoint it’s true that it’s not, you know, 


the information in IG-001 is not exactly the 


same as the information in OTIB-0023. OTIB0023 was prepared later and probably after 


there was a little more practical experience 


with trying to do dose reconstructions and 


what kind of information are we going to have 


because IG-001 was prepared very early on. So 


it’s true that they don’t say exactly the same 


things, but these are two of the documents and 


there are many others that are available 


during dose reconstruction. 


Part of our response in this is that 


there’s an entirety of data that’s used on 


each particular site, and IG-001 has general 


directions, general guidance. OTIB-0023 is 


supposed to provide some more specificity to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

165 

that, and then there is site specific 


information in the site profile that can be 


used in order to, you know, there should be a 


judgment statement in there about what years 


the dosimetry, the neutron dosimetry data 


should be bound, based upon the method they 


were using. 


So in terms of reading this OTIB on 


its own and saying that this OTIB in 


conjunction with IG-001, you know, I can see 


why some of these comments arise, but OTIB0023 is not used by itself or only with IG-001 


but it’s used in combination with other 


information available about this specific 


site. 


So it’s a little hard to really sort 


out what would we write different in OTIB-0023 


that would provide the kind of instruction we 


want without, you know, here rather than 


writing that instruction in the site profile. 


You’re looking at that kind of situation. 


Either have something like this that provides 


us with this information or you include this 


same kind of instruction in every site 


profile’s neutron dosimetry section to sort of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

166 

enhance what IG-001 gives in association with 


those site profile documents. 


So I guess I don’t, I’m having a hard 


time figuring out what amendments or what 


revisions we make here to OTIB-0023 or to 


documents in general to kind of address this 


what may be a consistency issue but what we 


feel like is sort of layers of specificity in 


each document having its own, serving its own 


purpose in the dose reconstruction process. 


So that’s kind of what I’m struggling with 


here because I’m not exactly sure what 


revisions to make here. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, let me 


add a couple things. First of all, Kathy just 


reminded me that I kept on referring to 


Implementation Guide-002. It’s Implementation 


Guide-001-2. 


But let me go quickly over what OTIB0023 really asks you to do. First of all in 


Section 3 and again in Section 6 it basically 


defines the use for this particular TIB in 


instances where the dosimeter is the dosimeter 


of record, meaning that we have faith in the 


neutron dosimeter and it’s a credible 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

dosimeter for use in neutron monitoring. 


And under condition one you are to use 


in cases where the dose ends up as being 


recorded as zero to simply apply the N times L 


over D divided by two. But if such a number 


in the end exceeds 75 percent of the external 


gamma dose, then you are to default to a 


situation where you deal with survey data and 


time and duration of exposure as a surrogate. 


Now I have to say, for instance, 


dealing with, and I can give you an example, a 


situation in ^ Hanford ^ a rubber glove line. 


And I looked at some of the data, and of 


course, post-1972 when the Hanford multipurpose dosimeter was introduced, we have, 


expect to assume is now a credible dosimeter. 


And I realize the neutron/photon ratio 


is under question, but at the same time there 


were data that I looked at where the 


neutron/photon ratio was probably in some 


instances close to a factor of four. In other 


words, you could have a neutron dose that was 


four times higher than your registered gamma 


dose. 


And the issue of saying, well, it’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

168 

greater than 0.75, we’ll default to some 


alternative method, would certainly not apply 


there. And so there are some instances, and 


I’m only giving examples where I would find 


that these methods, the two alternative 


methods here, are perhaps too restrictive. 


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): This is Matt 


Smith of the ORAU team. Can I interject some 


information? 


MS. MUNN: Please do. 


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): Just historically 


this TIB was developed as Stu stated to kind 


of clarify and add onto what’s in IG-001. One 


example would be the Savannah River site where 


OCAS has developed a TIB which is TIB-0007 


which further expands on neutron dosimetry 


practiced at Savannah River site. 


It’s that kind of additional technical 


information that you’re either going to find 


in additional TIBs like that for a site or in 


the site profile itself that allows the DR to 


use item number two which is under Section 


6.0, the guidance section of this TIB, to make 


their determinations. If you really use a 


document as Stu stated that was put into the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

169 

system it kind of revises and extends what is 


stated in IG-001. 


MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I would like to 


make a final statement here because the OTIB0023 really is based on having a credible 


neutron dosimeter. In other words, we trust 


what the neutron dosimeter says or records as 


a dose of record. And we’re not going to 


contest that. 


In other words if there is a zero 


recording that means we’re below LOD. And 


there’s no reason not to necessarily apply N 


times LOD over two for those reasons where we 


have a zero as a dose of record for that 


neutron monitoring period. And it would be no 


different from any others. And I agree that 


on average that N times L over D over two is 


probably somewhat claimant favorable, but so 


be it, and we do it for photon exposure. 


On the other hand if the dose of 


record based on the belief that this dosimeter 


registers a fair and accurate neutron exposure 


exceeds 75 percent of the gamma dose, so let 


it be. I mean, after all, that was saying we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170 

don’t trust the neutron dosimeter if it goes 


above 75 percent or the 0.75 fraction. 


To me the qualifying statement in TIB0023 is that it’s based on a credible neutron 


dosimeter. So for any time that is registered 


below LOD or zero recorded dose, you give the 


LOD over two. And for those instances where 


it’s a true dose, you accept that as, on face 


value. If it’s greater than 75 percent 


external gamma dose, well, let it be. That 


might just be the true radiation field in 


question. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I guess the provision was 


entered or was put in here because to avoid a 


situation where when we’re talking about 


missed doses, we’re talking about the 


dosimeter didn’t measure anything. So 


reliable dosimeter or not, it didn’t measure 


anything. 


So if it’s limited detection, if the 


neutron dosimeter badge is limited detection 


is quite high relative to the photon limited 


detection which is quite often, quite easily 


could be the case, then for many cycles of 


missed dose, you know, a lot of missed dose, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

171 

you can have a photon limited detection quite 


a lot smaller. 


You could have a work environment that 


is reasonably well characterized in some 


fashion. You know, it may not be a survey 


instrument or ^ survey data, but it may be 


reasonably characterizable because of source 


term information or because reliable dosimetry 


measurements of some sort. You could put 


yourself in the situation where just using LOD 


over two for both the neutron and the photon 


badge would end up with the assignment of a 


neutron missed dose that just doesn’t match 


the reality of the missed photon dose. 


In other words, if the neutron missed 


dose is going to be that high, you would have 


had to have had a measurable photon dose, 


because its limit ^. And so rather than just 


say automatically we will always assign LOD 


over two, which is our wont. You know, 


certainly on a photon badge, you’d ^ the 


photon badges were pretty good for most of the 


period, and we generally will assign LOD over 


two if they wore a badge that read zero, you 


know, it would be LOD over two. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

172 

But rather than just follow that on a 


neutron badge, there are situations where you 


could have evidence that indicates that’s just 


not credible. And so because of that 


situation, that’s why this kind of provision 


was put in there. And now the actual 


implementation of it should be site specific 


and location specific and how much do we 


really know, and how much can we really say 


about the radiation field that they, that 


these people might have encountered in their 


work. So that’s why this was in there was to 


allow for that eventuality. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): And I agree, 


Stu, that on average in most locations, the 


neutron dose will be less than the photon 


penetrating dose, and 0.75 is not an 


unreasonable ratio to draw as a crossover line 


where you say, well, this doesn’t seem 


reasonable. 


But two things, one, the idea of using 


instrumentation and time and motion studies is 


an unrealistic alternative, I would say as a 


minimum than to default to a 0.75 value and 


let it go with that value than default to a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

173 

time and motion study based on neutron 


measurements that may or may not really have 


any real significant value for a given 


individual. 


DR. NETON: Hans, this is, Jim. That kind 


of runs counter to what you just said though 


that you’ve seen ratios that could be as high 


as four. All this really does is recommend 


you do a field investigation of some kind. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): And I agree. 


DR. NETON: It doesn’t buy you anything 


other than do a sanity check is what it’s 


really trying to say here. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, as I 


said, if you look at the rubber glove line at 


Hanford, you ^ that ^ a period of time, 


especially from the ‘60s on, there were 


probably neutron/photon ratios that were based 


on instrumentation measurements, approach a 


value of four. And clearly to deny a person 


that option of saying, well, you have the 


neutron/photon ratio that exceeds 75 percent 


of your photon dose, is perhaps not fair. 


DR. NETON: Well, that’s not what it says 


here though. It says that two conditions need 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 -- 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174 

to be met, and if the second condition in this 


procedure is that if it could be established 


that the dose was basically zero. If it’s 


not, then clearly it says you can, I think you 


can do what you feel with the dosimetry data. 


Just trying to do a, you know, a sanity check 


on the dosimetry data itself. Like Stu said, 


a missed neutron dose can be much, much higher 


than a photon dose. And so I don’t think our 


part’s to go back and say, does this make 


sense in light of what we know about the 


particular conditions of the site. I just 


don’t see that being a bad thing to do. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, I think 


you almost have to go back to look at the TIB0023 and look at the actual instructions --


DR. NETON: I’m reading it right here while 


we’re talking. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, I am, 


too, and I’m somewhat in disagreement because 


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): Well, the other 


thing I would interject and maybe Scott could 


add to it there in the room is that any time a 


dose reconstructor does go down the road of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175 

using as guidance, the final paragraph there 


in Section 6 applies which is that whatever 


assumptions were made are discussed in the DR 


report which is not a random thing that’s just 


done in an automated sense with no thought to 


it. 


And Scott, you’ve got a lot of folks 


that do Hanford claims so maybe you can add to 


that discussion. 


MR. SIEBERT: You’re right onboard, and if 


someone does, they have to defend it in the DR 


report. The peer reviewers are looking for 


that, and I know the OCAS reviewers are 


looking for that as well. 


MS. MUNN: Does this satisfy some of your 


concerns, Hans? 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, not 


fully, but perhaps it’s something that needs 


to be more carefully discussed between SC&A 


and NIOSH and not necessarily take the time 


away today. 


DR. MAURO: What I’m watching is it’s 


interesting that when we review the procedure 


what I’m really hearing is that there is a 


vast amount of information available to the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176 

dose reconstructors that is continually 


expanding. And in theory all of them are kept 


abreast of this continually enriching dataset 


of information and guidance. 


So in effect, it’s really up to the 


dose reconstructor who has this OTIB in front 


of him which is just really one piece of 


guidance along with everything else. And in 


the end he uses this collective wisdom that’s 


before him to make a determination what dose 


he’s going to assign to a given worker for 


neutrons for a given year. And that’s what he 


puts into his IREP code. 


Now what I’m hearing though is that, 


so as a result there’s a, he draws upon all of 


this knowledge base. One of our concerns I 


believe is that this knowledge base is vast, 


and it may turn out that different dose 


reconstructors may interpret and draw upon 


this array of information differently and come 


out with an inconsistent result. Now would 


you explain -- it makes perfect sense to me. 


What you’re saying to me is that, as 


Jim explained, now listen, you look at all of 


this, he doesn’t look at this OTIB in a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

177 

vacuum. And I guess on the other side of the 


question is, well, where is the assurance that 


all of the 300 dose reconstructors, whatever, 


are, in fact, drawing upon this vast amount of 


information in a consistent way. And I guess 


by looking at the OTIB itself. It doesn’t 


give you the pathways. Maybe this is a --


MR. ELLIOTT: Well, let me try to speak to 


that, John. First of all there’s not 300 that 


are doing that. There’s different groups that 


are assigned certain, specific types of dose 


reconstructions to do. There’s, of course, 


internal dosimetrists, as you know, and 


external dosimetrists. And when a new tool 


comes online like this, it’s my understanding, 


my belief, that ORAU has a training session. 


Scott? 


Run them through a training session. 


The peer reviewers are also included in that 


so they understand what the new guidance is 


and what they are to look for in reviewing the 


work of the dose reconstructors. And that 


also gets translated over into the OCAS peer 


review that we do. 


And so I think, yes, we’re all 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

178 

concerned about consistency, too. We want to 


make sure that in this vast breadth of 


knowledge as it increases in its expanse we 


understand how people are taught to use it, 


and how we’re charged with reviewing that work 


product when it comes out. 


Am I --


MR. SIEBERT: Yes, you’re exactly correct. 


It’s each site has different small core groups 


that are really working the dose 


reconstructions, and Hanford is a perfect 


example. I won’t take somebody who’s working 


other sites and throw them into Hanford 


because there’s just so much to learn. So 


each core group is working together, and they 


get to know the specific information that’s 


needed for that site. And each site has a 


site expert. 


Oftentimes when it gets confusing, an 


internal and external expert that really 


people can answer questions as the dose 


reconstructors have their questions. The peer 


reviewers or the senior dose reconstructors 


who are also part of the same group who know 


what’s going on with all the portions. And 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179 

then the PID and the PED, the internal and 


external principals, also are available for 


any questions and answers. And that’s only on 


our side, but then it goes up to NIOSH and the 


same information is done there. 


MR. ELLIOTT: So you have that layer, but 


let’s talk in another layer, another context 


layer. And that is how many dose 


reconstructions does this particular issue 


bear upon? It’s really a best estimate, 


right? In where you’ve got to look at 


neutrons really hard to make sure you’re 


getting the right --


MR. SIEBERT: Right, if it can be an 


overestimate, you can throw in the LOD over 


two, and it doesn’t make any difference, 


that’s what will be done. But it has to be at 


the sharp end of the marshmallow exactly. 


It’s a smaller subset of claimants. 


MR. ELLIOTT: And then that takes us back to 


the previous layer and context. As Scott was 


saying, you’re not going to give one of those 


types of very hard cases or best estimate 


cases that’s got to have a lot of attention to 


detail to a really new dosimetrist. You’re 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

180 

going to make sure they give it to somebody 


that’s worked through one of these before. 


DR. MAURO: I hear what you’re saying, and I 


appreciate it. 


But when I read -- I mostly look at 


AWE sites so I won’t speak to Hanford. But I 


guess my question would be to perhaps Hans and 


Kathy is that when you review a Hanford where 


this issue may very well come up where a 


neutron exposure is concerned, the DR report 


itself. And of course, behind the DR report 


is all of the spreadsheets, an array of 


information. 


I know that when you look at the DR 


report itself, it does not communicate the 


richness of thought that goes into the 


selection of a particular strategy for doing 


that dose reconstruction. It’s imbedded 


perhaps in an amazing amount of material that 


stands behind that ten-page DR report. 


I guess this is more of a question to, 


that I could put on the table is that how 


transparent, is it important that this thought 


process and the way in which each dose 


reconstruction draws upon this and then, of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

181 

course, how it’s checked, how transparent is 


that to, for example, to us as auditors? I 


know what when Hans and Kathy and myself and 


others review, we work our way through a lot 


of material. And sometimes we’re able to 


match your numbers and understand how you got 


to where you got and the judgments that were 


made, and sometimes we don’t. 


And, Hans, when you review Hanford 


dose reconstructions, and you just heard an 


example of how this would be applied, do you 


run into situations where you find it 


difficult to understand the rationale or the 


decisions that were made ultimately in 


inserting a given number in the IREP input 


sheet? 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Actually, no, 


because at this point I do know the Hanford 


TBD for external dosimetry that addresses the 


issue of neutron exposures and assigns 


neutron/photon ratios. However, I will also 


add that we are not in agreement with those 


numbers, and 0023 does specifically state that 


in instances where you use or have a 


prescribed neutron/photon ratio this TIB does 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

182 

not apply. 


So in essence the time period prior to 


1972 when the albedo badge was introduced, the 


Hanford protocol would suggest a 


neutron/photon ratio of 0.71 which is under 


the 0.75 as the cutoff line prescribed in 


OTIB-0023 here. But there’s still the issue 


that I have to question. That is, if you do 


exceed 0.75 based on the N times LOD over two, 


and you now face the challenge of 


reconstructing neutron dose based on neutron 


survey data and time motion studies, where do 


you go to get this information? How does the 


dose reconstructor address this as an option 


for assigning missed neutron dose? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I don’t think an 


individual dose reconstructor would be 


expected to do that research. It would have 


to be a compendium that was collected probably 


in a site profile or something of that sort. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I mean, you 


would have to have RWP data. You would have 


to have incredible detailed information 


available to you and to me when I say that 


this is information that is unlikely to be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

183 

available to virtually anybody. 


DR. NETON: But, Hans, I think you’re 


missing the nature of these numbers one and 


two in the Guides because it clearly says that 


both conditions have to be met. One is they 


have to exceed 75 percent. And the second 


condition says that based on his work location 


and information in the TBD or other places, 


the dose reconstructor determines the neutron 


dose was zero. So if he can’t come up with 


that information, then clearly the two 


conditions haven’t been met. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Well, that is 


the third option which is totally unfair 


because if, in fact, now the number of zeros 


for neutrons exceeds the 75 percent of the 


external deep dose, then the guy ends up 


getting into the third category that says we 


don’t have any data. He exceeds 75 percent of 


the deep dose; and therefore, we’re going to 


assume he didn’t get any neutron exposure. 


That to me is totally unrealistic. 


DR. NETON: What? 


MR. HINNEFELD: That’s not the thought 


process though. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

184 

DR. NETON: That’s not what it says though. 


MR. HINNEFELD: The thought process is there 


are some people, I just gave you an example 


this morning like the secretary to the 


president of the company who you would not 


expect to, for instance, be monitored. I used 


it as being monitored, but there are certain 


jobs you would not expect neutron dose. 


But there were sites that hung a 


combination dosimeter that included a neutron 


component whenever they badged somebody. So 


even though they think those people didn’t 


particularly need to be monitored for 


neutrons, their combination badge had a 


neutron so the record will probably show zero 


for the cycle. 


And so under those circumstances where 


you can determine that a person really wasn’t 


neutron exposed -- and you’ve got to have a 


reasonable amount of evidence -- then you can 


conclude, well, okay, any neutron exposure 


would have been incidental or essentially 


zero, and so we’re not going to include it at 


all. That would be the only time that you 


would do that, not just because there’s a lack 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

185 

of data but because when there’s sufficient 


data to say this person wasn’t neutron 


exposed. 


But other than that there has to be 


some adjustment, some accounting for 


unmeasured neutron dose. Neutron doses below 


the detection level of the badge. If a person 


was exposed to neutrons, and his neutron 


readings are zero, you have to account for 


that in some way. That missed dose has to be 


accounted for in some fashion. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I understand, 


Stu. There are really three categories. You 


could have a situation where your LOD over two 


and times N gives you less then 75 percent of 


your deep dose in which case you’re fine. You 


assign that dose. 


On the other hand when it does exceed 


75 percent, you have a choice to make. You 


can, based on job description as you mentioned 


a secretary, and say, well, they were handed a 


multi-purpose dosimeter, but there was very 


little or no reason to assume that that 


individual was exposed to neutrons; and 


therefore, come to the conclusion that there’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

186 

no need to assign any. 


But there’s still yet the alternative 


that yet the job description would suggest 


that the person was exposed to neutrons, but 


his calculated dose based on N times L over D 


over two is greater than 75, and you’re still 


faced with the issue of trying to figure out 


what to do about that person. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think there would 


be, there are ways to do that. I don’t know 


that they’re spelled out in TIB-0023, but 


presumably there’s site profile information or 


some document like that that would provide an 


alternative. And the question here is not, 


we’re trying, the point here is if LOD over 


two is not realistic because of a known 


characterization of the work place, if the 


neutron LOD over two just isn’t feasible, 


isn’t credible, because of his photon 


dosimetry record, and some knowledge of the 


radiation characteristics of where he worked, 


then you don’t just blindly assign LOD over 


two. If that doesn’t, I mean, now, if you 


don’t just blindly assign LOD over two, that 


doesn’t mean that you blindly assign zero. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

187 

What it means is there must be some way to 


account for that. It could be that TIB-0023 


by itself doesn’t explain that very well. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): But it defaults 


to Implementation Guide-001 which says you use 


a time motion study and survey data which to 


me is also a highly unreasonable approach to 


filling in that void. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think it’s 


unreasonable to expect the dose reconstructor 


to do that. I’ll agree with you. To ask an 


individual dose reconstructor to search down 


those records and make that determination. 


That’s unreasonable. But that or other ways 


of doing a work place radiation 


characterization are supposed to be available 


in some other vehicle to the dose 


reconstructor whether, and I’m thinking site 


profile. There may be other vehicles as well, 


other technical documents as well, that would 


provide that. But the question here is not, 


it’s strictly a matter of let’s assign a dose 


that’s credible here, not one that’s 


incredible just by following this procedure, 


just applying it. That’s the whole point of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

188 

this. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I believe ^ 


would be to say, okay, if you think 75, we’ll 


stop at 75, and that will be a bounding value 


even under best estimates. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I think that might the 


case in some sites. I’m just not completely 


familiar with all the techniques, but I think 


it sounds as if maybe some better explanation 


of the intent here, whether we put it in the 


TIB or not may help us out. And so, I mean, I 


can take that back and say, look, if I were 


going to read this thing, and I was going to 


read this, how would it be clear to me what 


exactly are we trying to attain? 


I mean, we can go and take that as an 


action and try to come up with some clarity to 


the usage here because it appears that it’s 


not. It appears that it’s not very clear, and 


so I guess --


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): Well, I would 


just interject again on item number two under 


Section 6 where it says other documentation, 


again, if it was Savannah River site, I’m 


going to go get OCAS TIB number 0007 which 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

189 

goes into further depth and detail about 


neutron exposures at Savannah River site. And 


that’s what’s going to get used, as Dr. Neton 


stated, to qualify the situation under item 


number two. 


The document was made general in 


nature and all with the future in mind knowing 


that there would be a wide variety of site 


profiles, and in addition, add additional TIBs 


that might be added in the future to clarify 


what’s in the sight profile or to expand on 


what’s in the site profile. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): I still 


personally think that you can simplify things 


because under the current ^ guidance, if a guy 


ends up with a calculated neutron dose that 


ends up coming just under the wire, let’s say 


74 percent of his deep dose, you would give to 


him. If he ends up with 76 percent, or 0.76, 


you would end up defaulting to some very 


incredibly difficult option for assigning the 


dose. Why not just simply assign a cutoff 


date and say thou shalt never exceed 75 


percent of your deep dose and let it go? 


DR. NETON: Hans, you can give him 76 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

190 

percent if the documentation is not supporting 


the fact that he was not neutron exposed. 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Of course, 


we’ve been through that. If the person was a 


secretary, and you come to the conclusion that 


there should be no neutron exposure, I agree. 


But what if you come to the realization that 


there was a potential for neutron exposure, 


and you don’t have the data? 


DR. NETON: Hans, this is no different than 


what we do for every single thing we use 


coworker data. It’s ambient; it’s 50 percent; 


it’s 95th percentile. There are value 


judgments made on these cases. I don’t know 


why this is that different to you. 


I mean, you have to make a value 


judgment at some point. Was this person 


potentially exposed, yes or no? And if they 


were exposed, were they heavily exposed or 


average-type exposed. That’s the exactly what 


this is doing. It’s no different. 


MS. MUNN: We’re getting really down into 


the weeds here with respect to the issues on 


OTIB-0023. Let’s establish that the further 


technical discussion on this particular item 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

191 

covering all eight of the outstanding issues 


under OTIB-0023 will be discussed by the 


technical experts at NIOSH, ORAU and SC&A. 


And we will revisit this at our next face-toface meeting to see whether any resolution has 


occurred so that our SC&A experts are 


comfortable with, more comfortable with the 


responses that have been given by NIOSH. Is 


that acceptable? 


DR. BEHLING (by Telephone): Yeah, and I 


would, add to that, Wanda, just perhaps a 


simple statement that under Section 6 of the 


TIB, under Guidance, there should be a little 


more definitive explanation given in terms of 


what are the options here. One and two 


basically says if you need both one and two, 


you don’t get anything. That to me is an 


incomplete guidance for dealing with this 


particular OTIB. 


MS. MUNN: I’ll leave that to the discussion 


group to resolve. 


And it’s time for us to take a 15­

minute break now. When we come back for your 


information the first item that we want to 


cover is the one that I indicated we would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192 

cover no matter what, OTIB-0019, which 


interestingly enough is on page 19. Let’s put 


that one in its appropriate slot immediately 


following a 15-minute break. We’ll go offline 


for that period and be back here in 15. 


 DR. WADE: We’ll mute the phone and back in 


15. 


(Whereupon, a break was taken from 3:25 p.m. 


until 3:42 p.m.) 


MS. MUNN: Thank you, we are back on track 


here. 


Dr. Ziemer, did you have a question? 


DR. ZIEMER: I have question following up on 


the previous discussion. Will the next 


version of our document have some kind of a 


summary of Hans’ comments which really, I feel 


like we’re not close to resolution on those 


items. And it’s almost like, okay, here are 


SC&A’s responses to NIOSH. I mean it seems, 


or something like that here. In this new 


version will there be a synopsis? Because 


Hans raised a lot of issues, some of which I 


think had to do with interpretation of what 


the document actually says versus the 


technical because I want to --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

193 

MS. MUNN: But, Paul, it was the intent when 


the groups were asked to meet offline and 


discuss this to try to distill the issues to 


the bottom line as it were, and for this group 


to discuss that on our forthcoming phone call 


before any entry would be made on our --


DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. I felt like we 


needed to capture, I mean, that’s, I don’t 


know if those are the official responses or 


what this, but I mean, that’s the sort of 


thing that’s hard to --


DR. MAURO: This is the perfect test case. 


In other words in effect on this issue where 


we are in the process is this working group 


meeting on this date. There’s this issue, 


right? And right here --


DR. ZIEMER: Right, and I feel like we’re 


pretty far apart right now. 


DR. MAURO: Right. And right now we’ll try 


to keep it brief that there is an issue here 


that we’re --


DR. ZIEMER: SC&A’s concerns remain --


DR. MAURO: Right, well, we’ll briefly 


summarize it. That’s why we wanted to bring 


this form. We will discuss it amongst the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

194 

three, I guess whoever needs to discuss what 


the work should be here. And then there 


certainly will be Board words here regarding 


what your direction is to what needs to be 


done to take action. 


 DR. WADE: If you have this call where the 


technical people discuss it, the results of 


that call will then be captured. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, if we could do that 


quickly. You see, in my mind we’d like to 


capture that. Now the only question becomes 


how deep do we go into it. In my mind our 


intent was to revise this quickly after the 


working group meeting so that we could reissue this. So if we can get the right 


language in quickly after this meeting for 


this spot right here on this issue, that would 


be the intent. And not make this so drawn 


out. 


I mean, for every one of the issues 


where we have to put something in every one of 


these issues we discussed today, the intent 


would be to somehow capture the discussion 


that was held and put it right in here soon 


after this meeting, let’s say within a week 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

195 

from today after we get back. And that would 


be what I had in my mind for this form. 


MS. MUNN: It would be hoped that not much 


would go on there until that telephone call 


between the technical parties that was 


requested to try to really distill that to its 


essence. 


DR. MAURO: I guess that’s the question 


before the working group. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me speak to that in a 


somewhat generic way. One of the things that 


we’ve sort of allowed the contractor and NIOSH 


to do separate from the Board is address 


issues of factual, do you have the right 


information, but not resolution of issues if 


you understand what I’m saying. 


So that if they’re saying to Hans, 


actually, you don’t have the right 


information. Maybe we didn’t say this right 


in our procedure so we’ll revise the 


procedure. So we say what we intend, what 


we’re trying to explain here. And Hans says, 


oh, that’s what you mean, okay, then I don’t 


have any problem with. That I think you can, 


no, you can do that offline. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

196 

DR. MAURO: What goes here is --


DR. ZIEMER: If there’s a resolution that 


you need to come to, that’s where we have the 


work group. I’m not clear which is which 


because it seems like some of what I heard was 


Stu saying or Jim saying to Hans, well, you’re 


not understanding that correctly, or we don’t 


read it in the same way so have we not said it 


right or what. And that’s sort of fact 


finding and I think that can be done offline. 


MS. MUNN: That was the request to be done 


offline and then discussed with us on our 


working group call. 


DR. ZIEMER: And then if there’s still 


issues, then we have to resolve them. 


MS. MUNN: Right. 


DR. MAURO: So it goes in that spot as you 


just said. That is, if there’s any 


disagreement regarding interpretation of 


language or clarity of the information 


provided in 23, and that is to be further 


evaluated by the working group. 


DR. ZIEMER: Or you have gotten together and 


agreed on certain things that maybe some of 


these will fall away then. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

197 

DR. MAURO: Well, that’s the question I’m 


posing to the working group. To what degree 


do we actually start to resolve it during this 


call? See, to me my intent was simply to 


capture what was discussed at this meeting 


clearly and not in that step which would be, 


let’s say, the exchange of the meeting, the 


conference calls, the exchange of white 


papers. See, in my mind that is separate from 


this form. This form is filled out and just 


captures what transpired and the direction 


given by the working group to NIOSH and SC&A 


at this meeting and not say anything more than 


that unless you see it differently. 


 DR. WADE: If at the next meeting the result 


of that little clarification session is 


reported out, then it can be captured. 


DR. MAURO: Then it will be captured then. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, yes, no problem with any of 


that I believe. And we have one other outlier 


here before we take up what I said we were 


going to take up immediately. 


John, would you like to tell us what 


the issue is here? 


DR. MAURO: There is going to be a meeting 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

198 

with General Steel Industries on October 9th, a 


site visit. NIOSH will be going there. One 


of the things I asked Wanda and Lew was 


whether it would be appropriate for --


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): John, let me 


interject. The site visit is not, it’s still 


pending, and it probably has not been approved 


and may not be approved by the current site 


operator. 


DR. MAURO: This October 9th meeting, how 


should I refer to it? 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): Well, it is a 


worker outreach meeting. 


DR. MAURO: A worker outreach meeting. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Let me clear about this. 


There are two meetings, I believe. There’s 


one meeting, one meeting for GSI, and it’s not 


a worker outreach meeting. It is a town hall 


meeting where we are proposing to explain to a 


claimant-based audience how we are doing their 


dose reconstructions using TBD-6000 and 


Appendices BB. So it’s not a worker outreach 


meeting. 


A worker outreach meeting, for 


everybody’s understanding, is a narrow focus 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

199 

group-type setting where we pull six-to-eight 


workers together who have knowledge about the 


operations and the process. And we pose 


questions to them and we try to get a better, 


clearer understanding of how they interacted 


with the work they had to do. So this is not 


a worker outreach meeting. 


MS. MUNN: And we muddied the meeting for 


you a little bit the last time. 


MR. ELLIOTT: We’re all on a learning curve 


here. 


DR. MAURO: That’s the reason I posed the 


question whether or not it would be worthwhile 


for Bob Anigstein representing S&A to 


participate in that simply because he has a 


number of questions related to the modeling 


he’s doing for General Steel Industries and 


the Betatron. But it sounds like the 


questions he has won’t be answered at this 


meeting. What he had in mind was the ability 


to perhaps actually go to the site and ask 


certain questions. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): John, I keep 


saying that’s not up to NIOSH. That’s up to 


the site operators. So far they have not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

200 

given their consent. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, there’s information we’d 


like to get our hands on if we can. I guess I 


was under the impression that perhaps Bob 


joining in this meeting that information could 


be acquired. But if that’s not the case, it 


may not be worthwhile for Bob to make that 


trip. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Well, let me pose this as an 


opportunity for Bob to pull people aside from 


that meeting. I mean he can identify people 


that may want to talk to him one-on-one. And 


he could ask his questions and maybe get some 


clear responses. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): That I can 


also, you know, we have a contact liaison with 


the workers, [name redacted], that’s been 


talking with us. And I believe he could 


arrange some telephone interviews. I mean a 


face-to-face is even better, but --


MR. ELLIOTT: But I have no problem with Bob 


going there and pulling people aside from the 


meeting if that’s what he wants to do. I 


think we ought to talk a little bit about this 


site visit though. And just to be on the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

201 

record here and conducting site visits with 


entities who perhaps don’t, who own the site 


now, own the facility, or if it’s the same 


entity, let’s say it was GSI still that owned 


this site, NIOSH has no access, no entré 


authority. We can’t go in under any 


regulatory authority. We can’t get your 


contractor access to the site. So we’re on 


the good graces of the owners of that site to 


let you in. And I know that [name redacted] 


really thinks it’s important and would like to 


have everybody walk through that facility. 


But it’s not something that we can make happen 


unless the owners will allow it to happen. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): I understand 


that. 


MS. MUNN: The question that John posed is 


whether or not it was reasonable for the SC&A 


representative to be going to that particular 


meeting given their contractual obligations. 


I responded to him that I certainly was not 


comfortable making any thumbs up or thumbs 


down decision about that kind of undertaking 


because I felt it was outside the authority of 


this particular group. But since there seems 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

202 

to be a time issue, a time versus cost issue 


here, I asked him to bring it to this group so 


that we would at least be aware of it. 


I’m open to any suggestion from anyone 


else with respect to whether this is something 


that you’re comfortable even saying personally 


that you have feelings on one way or the other 


or whether it needs to go to the Board. Or 


whether it’s something, a decision that John 


can make himself. 


DR. ZIEMER: I don’t think it’s this work 


group’s prerogative so that it’s really the 


contractor’s call at this point as to how you 


gather information. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, thank you, and it is 


important, the point that you’ve made is that 


if we are in a position where we can pose 


certain questions and talk to people like 


that, then the trip will be well worth it. 


MR. ELLIOTT: There’s certainly going to be 


people in the room. 


DR. MAURO: That’ll be able to answer the 


questions. 


MR. HINNEFELD: If it matters, at our last 


worker outreach or kind of town hall-type 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

203 

meetings out there in the past and some of the 


people at that meeting had direct knowledge of 


the use of the Betatron and were the 


operators, you know, the radiographers that 


operated it, and could speak very clearly 


about what they did. So if the same people 


show up or some of the same people show up, it 


may be you can gain some valuable information. 


DR. MAURO: Then on that basis I’d very much 


like to see Bob go. 


DR. NETON: Let’s be clear. I mean, this 


would take place on the side in addition to 


the town hall formatted meeting. 


DR. ZIEMER: As part of the meeting. 


DR. NETON: As, Wanda, we learned at 


Blockson Chemical, you just cannot mix the 


two. 


MS. MUNN: You don’t do that. 


DR. NETON: You have emotions running very 


high with people who want to voice their 


opinions, and you just can’t --


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): This would 


be, this would take place before the meeting. 


In other words this would be in the afternoon 


before the meeting; some individual, small 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

204 

group meetings would be arranged. That’s my 


understanding in talking to the workers’ 


representatives. 


MS. MUNN: Sounds like the agreement here is 


it’s your call, John. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, good. I’d very much like 


Bob to do that. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Is it your preference, John, 


that Bob do this without any NIOSH 


involvement? 


DR. MAURO: No, my preference would be that 


NIOSH participate so that everyone has the 


same information. 


MR. HINNEFELD: We’ll be there then. 


MR. ELLIOTT: So if that’s okay with you, 


John, we would like to sit in and hear what’s 


being said. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): Can I ask who 


would be sitting in? 


MR. HINNEFELD: It will be probably Dave 


Allen, will be Dave Allen and probably myself, 


Stu Hinnefeld. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): Who’s 


speaking? 


MR. HINNEFELD: This is Stu Hinnefeld. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205 

DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): Oh, hi, Stu. 


I just wasn’t sure who it was. I see so there 


would be, and I would be there. Okay, 


understood. 


DR. MAURO: Thank you. 


MS. MUNN: And one other item of business 


before we get back to OTIB-0019. We had asked 


Mark Griffon to put together specific words 


for us that he was going to be using tomorrow, 


and -- rather Thursday. What day is today? 


This is Tuesday. It’ll be Thursday. I’m told 


that Mark is probably not on the line. 


 DR. WADE: Mark, are you on the line? 


 (no response) 


 DR. WADE: He sent the words to me. 


MS. MUNN: Very good. 


 DR. WADE: Now this is, Mark was generating 


words that would form a question to be asked 


of the Legal team if you recall about the re-


interviewing. Quote, one of the 


recommendations of SC&A’s review of PROC-92 


was that the Board interview those claimants 


who were the subject of the SC&A review to 


gain a better understanding of the claimant’s 


opinion of the effectiveness of the close-out 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

206 

interview process. If the work group-slash-


Board accepts SC&A’s recommendation, can the 


Board conduct such interviews with the narrow 


purpose of gaining insight from the claimant’s 


standpoint on the effectiveness of the closeout interview process? Closed quote. 


MS. MUNN: Sounds reasonable to me. Any 


disagreement? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Lew, if the Board accepts 


that, can you just forward that language to us 


so we can respond to this and ^ that question? 


 DR. WADE: Certainly. 


OTIB-0019
 

MS. MUNN: Thank you. Now to the item that 


would be taken up immediately following our 


break, page 19, OTIB-0019, with respect to 


regression analysis. We have a response from 


NIOSH to the item. There’s only one item. 


Take just another moment to re-read it. I’m 


sure you’ve all read it before. 


SC&A? 


DR. MAURO: I’m going to turn this over to 


Bob Anigstein who has been working on this 


issue. 


Bob, can you address OTIB-0019? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

207 

DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): Sure. I 


pretty much have the same thing to say that I 


said at the telephone conference, the one that 


we had earlier in the summer about, with this 


working group. 


I read over the NIOSH response and we 


don’t agree with it. The reason being that 


our point, ours because I’ve looked at this 


and so has our statistician, Dr. Harry 


Chlmynski, that R squared is a valid measure 


of correlation when you are examining the data 


where there has been no correlation imposed on 


it. 


So let’s say if there was, to make up 


an example, a known uranium intake and then 


corresponding urine analyses of the same 


individuals, it would be reasonable to take 


these pairs of data and do a correlation 


between them. And if you had an R squared of 


^.9, we’d say yes, that indicates that the 


urine analysis is a good indicator of intake. 


And maybe 0.7 may be sort of passable. 


But here you don’t have independent, 


you don’t have two independent variables that 


you’re comparing. You’re comparing the Z 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

208 

score and the rank. These are already 


correlated by nature of the process. You sort 


them out; you sort out the data. You assign 


the Z score, and then you assign a rank to it, 


and the two are automatically correlated. So 


to say whether the R squared is a measure of 


whether or not these are lognormal is not 


valid. 


And there is a paper that’s cited in 


our response which shows that artificially 


making up data points, you always get an R 


squared of around 0.9 sometimes even 0.99, but 


this does not indicate that it’s lognormal. 


And there are other tests that are valid. 


There are valid tests for lognormality, a 


number of them which would be more appropriate 


to apply. 


And the reason the question of 


lognormal is important is if, say, one were to 


pick the 95th percentile and assign that as a 


worker dose or for a bioassay result for an 


unmonitored worker, it becomes very important 


because, one, if a 95th percentile can be 


calculated by -- I’m not sure I’m correct ^ --


1.6 or five times the standard deviation --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

209 

I’m just going off the top of my head. 


Or the other way would be to actually 


take if off the distribution. And there is a 


nonparametric method by determining the 95th
 

percentile of ranked data that makes no 


assumptions as to whether it’s lognormal or 


not. And that would seem to me to be a more 


valid, and in some cases, more claimant 


favorable approach. That’s basically the 


response I would have had to that. 


DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton, Bob, I think 


I don’t disagree with some of the things you 


just presented here. I think we need to go 


back and reword this a little better. I do 


disagree that in the sense that I think a 


straight line fit is a reasonable thing to 


look at when you’re fitting cumulative 


probability data because for the exact reason 


you just stated, if you can demonstrate that 


that cumulative probability fit is a straight 


line, then you can make some reasonable 


assumptions or extrapolations about what the 


95th percentile is. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): I agree. 


DR. NETON: That’s what you’re exactly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

210 

trying to do. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): I agree with 


that. 


DR. NETON: So I think maybe we’re doing the 


right thing. We’re saying it may be slightly 


statistically improperly here, and we’ll 


reword this to I think better reflect what 


we’re really using that for. 


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): Okay. Also, 


as long as we’re on this, at this point in the 


procedure if that’s acceptable to the 


Chairman, I’d also like to mention OTIB-0012. 


That’s not on the agenda for the reason that 


it was given a five. 


Now what happened internally at SC&A 


is these were, both 12 and 19, were 


statistical issues, but they were assigned to 


our statistician, Dr. Chlmynski, who reviewed 


12 and found, he did his own Monte Carlo 


analysis, and found that the mathematics are 


correct. That the statistics procedure was 


correctly implemented. 


However, what was not considered at 


the time of that review were the actual 


Health-Physics and dose reconstruction 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

211 

implications of that procedure. And having 


looked at that it appears that because the, as 


one example, the OCAS, the Appendix B to OCAS 


1G, or to Procedure 1G, does indicate these 


are photon dose conversion factors based on 


zero to 30 keV, 30 to 250 keV over 250 keV. 


And these were taken from the 


appropriate tables in ICRP Publication 74 


which gives a great deal of detail. They give 


it broken in much smaller steps, maybe ten or 


maybe 12 or 20 increments in energy. And 


these were sort of condensed into what is 


representative a triangular distribution. And 


typically, the number in both ^ is much higher 


than the mid-range. 


And my understanding is that that is 


the number that is usually used. If the dose 


reconstructor looks for a single value, he 


would use that number. Now, when you do the 


procedure in OTIB-0012, which is folding that 


triangular distribution into a normal 


distribution that is assigned that accounts 


for the uncertainty in the measurement, you 


end up actually with a lower value that is 


less claimant favorable as the mid-point. And 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

212 

so that’s the objection that SC&A ^ John Mauro 


has ^. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: It’s not in the matrix 


because -- I’m just looking at our document --


OTIB-0012 I think had all scores of five --


DR. ANIGSTEIN (by Telephone): I know that, 


but based purely on a statistical evaluation ­

-


DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no, I’m just informing 


people as to where to find what you’re talking 


about, Bob. 


It’s in the full report on page 115 


where the checklist is, but it doesn’t show up 


in the matrix because everything’s a five. 


And I think what Bob is saying is that 


everything shouldn’t have been a five, and 


there should have been an elaboration made. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, that’s a good question. 


In the process for preparing for this meeting, 


reviewing the original document that was about 


a year ago, we revisited some of these issues. 


And Bob Anigstein had looked at this other 


OTIB procedures, 19 and 12. And we’re in a 


situation now where, I guess the bottom line 


is we do have some concerns with 12 that we’re 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

213 

expressing now, OTIB-0012, that we did not 


have before. And you heard what the concern 


was. How best to proceed? 


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): I could address 


some of them right now. This is Matthew 


Smith, but I’ll leave that to OCAS as to 


whether or not they want me to speak on an 


issue we haven’t had time to consider yet. 


DR. NETON: Why don’t we see what the Board 


is going to do with it, or working group. 


MS. MUNN: This is an interesting issue, and 


one that probably will come up over and over 


again when we encounter these, oh, by the way, 


back when sorts of issues. Clearly, it falls 


under the purview of Task 3 and what we have 


done. It would appear that we need to 


formulate in our own minds a standard 


procedure for dealing with this. 


I can see no reason why that procedure 


shouldn’t simply be a one-page statement, a 


one-page white paper from SC&A identifying 


chapter and verse and the reasons why you feel 


that it now should be undertaken as a part of 


our responsibility. When you do that, then we 


will incorporate it in our agenda at the next 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

214 

working group meeting, and we’ll undoubtedly 


anticipate seeing it on the matrix as well, 


and that way we can track it. But as long as 


we have, it’s my feeling in any case. Please 


other Board members tell me if you feel 


otherwise. We need to have at least a simple 


document of some sort to refer to as the 


trigger for this action to occur. Any 


objection to that? 


DR. ZIEMER: I concur with that. I think we 


certainly don’t want to have a rule that you 


can’t bring up anything for the time that’s 


passed. But we do need to have it documented 


and then there’ll be a reason for it to show 


up in the matrix next time. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Then also you might 


incorporate that page in a page change. 


DR. MAURO: I was thinking the best way 


perhaps would be just to submit to everyone, a 


page change and just insert this page here and 


replace that page. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: Then you have a loose page, 


one-page document kind of ^. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, it may change your 


summary, your front summary, too. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

215 

DR. MAURO: It would just replace the --


DR. ZIEMER: The finding, you’ll have a 


finding. So you’ll have a couple of pages 


probably to --


 DR. WADE: But you’ll bring it to the work 


group, and then they’ll decide whether it can 


be entered in the matrix. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, and the next action to be 


taken. I guess that’s the question. 


Certainly we could take that particular review 


for OTIB-0012, revise it, have it sitting at 


SC&A. The question is, okay, what do we do at 


that point in time. 


 DR. WADE: Wanda asked that you prepare a 


one-page document raising the issue to the 


work group for consideration at the next 


meeting. If they agree, then they’ll say go 


and add it. 


That’s what you said? 


MS. MUNN: Yes, yes, essentially. 


OTIB-0017
 

Are we ready for the next item on our 


list? We skipped over OTIB-0017. We were 


going along in an orderly manner, but I 


insisted that we go to 19 because I wanted to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

216 

get that off of our yet-to-be-done list, but 


we still have something to be done. The NIOSH 


action, they’re going to reword their response 


to express that differently. 


OTIB-0017 starts on page 11 and has 15 


action items, 15 findings. Take just a moment 


to read through them. 


These are fairly wide-ranging issues 


with a significant variant of depth to the 


response and the concern. I don’t know of any 


way to address this other than starting 


through it one finding at a time. Does anyone 


have any problem with that? I can’t see how 


else to do it. 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: One finding at a time then. 


John? 


DR. MAURO: I’ll be the point man on this. 


I guess the first item has to do with the 


guidance given to the dose reconstruction. 


This all has to do by the way with shallow 


dose to beta or photon radiation. And the 


first concern expressed here has to do with 


clarity regarding, first of all being able to 


make a distinction between whether the shallow 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

217 

dose was due to electrons or was due to 


photons, and that distinction is important. 


And apparently the procedure is not, 


somewhat ambiguous on how to interpret the 


reading that you get back from the dosimeter, 


and how that dosimeter was calibrated, whether 


or not it was calibrated for low energy photon 


exposure versus electron exposure. And in the 


procedure the concern was that it’s unclear on 


how to make that distinction and that 


distinction was important to be made when 


you’re determining what the shallow dose is. 


I don’t know if I --


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think we understand 


the issue. Again, this OTIB is used in 


conjunction with other technical documents, in 


this case most directly the site profile. So 


information that’s a site specific question 


about how is the shallow dose, what does it 


mean when they report a shallow dose, how did 


they arrive at that. It’s a site specific 


question. 


So this information is utilized in 


combination with the site profile information 


to make that judgment. And it’s site 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

218 

specific, and it doesn’t lend, that kind of 


the information doesn’t lend itself to an OTIB 


that’s used for all the sites. 


MS. MUNN: Does that clarify? 


DR. MAURO: Yep. I mean, as long as that, 


in other words the main concern is that there 


is a vehicle by which someone could make that 


distinction, and you’re saying it’s contained 


in the site profile. And the dose 


reconstructor will go there and be able to --


MR. HINNEFELD: The dose reconstructors are 


a team of people who work on that site. 


DR. MAURO: We’re probably going to run into 


this --


MR. HINNEFELD: Sure, sure, I think we will 


a lot because, again, when you review these by 


themselves, I think it’s perfectly 


understandable for these things to appear, but 


they do, these documents are used in this 


context with other technical documents as 


well. 


MS. MUNN: The response to 01 is acceptable. 


Zero two. 


DR. MAURO: Well, this has to do with 


protective clothing. Let me just take a quick 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

219 

look. 


MS. MUNN: Clothing specific transmission 


factors. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, yeah, this is pretty 


straightforward. There’s a default protection 


factor that’s based on certain information 


around the shielding effect of standard 


clothing. The comment that’s made here is 


that, I guess we’ll see it again, that it 


could be very variable what that protection 


factor is and whether or not the particular 


one that was selected as a default value is 


the most appropriate value to be used. 


Apparently, that the author of this, John 


Hunt, found that there are perhaps better 


values to be used as your default value for 


protection factors or shielding effectiveness. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And I think part of this has 


to do with why bother to have an 


overestimating rather than underestimating 


shielding value when you’ve got more specific 


ones in there. There’s a certain 


psychological aspect to doing this that if I 


underestimate this dose, this guy’s dose 


intentionally, and it’s still compensable, I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

220 

felt good that this is a compensable case, and 


it’s going to be compensable. And so there’s 


a kind of a reassurance to a dose 


reconstructor to be able to do that. 


Or conversely, there’s a kind of 


reassurance to a dose reconstructor to 


intentionally overestimate the dose and arrive 


at a non-compensable value. So that’s done 


sometimes, and maybe it’s done needlessly, and 


maybe a best estimate would be, you know, you 


can pick out what is the true value. What’s 


the true, you know, shielding factor we should 


use. 


But we have not really interfered with 


that process of an underestimating or 


overestimating approach when they choose that. 


It’s one of those things that’s done commonly, 


and were done commonly from the start. 


DR. MAURO: So in other words what you’re 


saying here is that the dose reconstructor 


really has the, if he’s doing the minimizing 


versus maximizing, he has the flexibility to 


choose what he feels is most appropriate in 


the case. Now, I guess I’d have to go back 


and read the procedure again, but it --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

221 

MR. HINNEFELD: That’s essentially the 


intent of the response is that there are 


variations in what clothing, what protection 


clothing would provide to a beta dose. And 


there are some ranges given or there are some 


specific values given even for a specific 


thing. I think a common coverall is so much 


and some things like that. And if the dose 


reconstructor can choose a larger shielding 


factor and still arrive at a compensable 


decision for the case, it provides him a 


little psychological reassurance. I got this 


one right. I underestimated, and it’s still 


compensable so I can worry less about this 


one. 


DR. MAURO: I fully agree and understand 


what you’re saying. I presume the language is 


in there. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that’s in there. 


I’m not 100 percent sure, but it’s presumed. 


I mean the dose reconstructor. The dose 


reconstructor’s ^ all think that way. Yeah, 


there is language in here that says an 


acceptable claimant favorable approach is to 


assume 100 percent transmission. In other 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

222 

words in that case you’re ignoring it. 


DR. MAURO: No shield. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And for compensable cases an 


acceptable minimizing approach is a 


transmission 0.6. So that does come out of 


the ^. Yeah, that does come ^. 


DR. MAURO: A perfectly acceptable answer. 


MS. MUNN: Acceptable. Dash 03. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, this is about whether 


you can measure beta doses. 


MS. MUNN: Beta doses. 


DR. MAURO: And this is going to be 


recurring with a lot of these is when all is 


said and done, the most important comment that 


was made here is most of the time when we’re 


talking about doing beta dosimetry, you’re 


talking a beta exposure at some distance where 


a certain part of the body might be exposed to 


both photon and beta from some source. 


However, very often the exposure is 


because a particle has landed on a person’s 


skin or on his clothing and some more highly 


energetic beta emitters landing even on the 


clothing will deliver relatively high, 


localized dose. The film badge is not going 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

223 

to pick up. And I guess when I read through 


the commentaries it appeared that the 


procedure in terms of how do you deal with 


that, skin contamination by beta emitters for 


a person that’s a claimant for a skin cancer 


or other shallow organ cancer; however, 


ultimately how is that dealt with. 


So that goes toward this question here 


about, yes or no, was the person, was he 


exposed to that or not. And I guess we’d like 


to hear a little bit about that and see what 


the answer is to it. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I guess on the, 


certainly, the dose reconstructor has the 


option, you know, if there’s evidence of a 


contamination event that’s expected that will 


be addressed in the dose reconstruction. If 


there were some experience with hot particle 


that was never, you know, no detection of hot 


particles, I don’t know that we don’t have an 


approach that says add so much dose for 


undetected hot particle exposure. So we don’t 


have an approach like that. 


DR. MAURO: So I mean in theory what I’m 


hearing is that, okay, you have a worker. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

224 

He’s leaving his work area. He’s frisked. 


Nothing is picked up; therefore, no issue, no 


problem. However, ten years later he comes 


down with a skin cancer, and the question 


becomes is it possible that that skin cancer 


was due to some localized deposition. And the 


answer is, well, if there’s no record that we 


ever saw any skin contamination as part of his 


frisking, then we will not assume that that 


occurred. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think that that is 


probably accurate. I don’t know that we 


assume that a, we don’t look at a, we don’t 


treat every skin cancer case and say, okay, 


how much of a hot particle experience would 


there have had to have been for this to be 


compensable. So we’re kind of in a situation 


now where if there’s evidence, including 


interview information, you know, I was ^ up 


several times, you know, found on the way 


home. Generally, a dose reconstruction will 


address that, or at least will take steps to 


make sure that the skin dose would account for 


those times ^. But if there’s no evidence, 


for instance, it’s a person who went to work 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

225 

in an area with potential hot particles, and 


there’s no evidence that they were ever 


exposed or contaminated in some fashion, it’s 


not normally our practice to say, okay, then 


for this skin cancer case, and I guess, for 


the skin cancer case what would kind of a hot 


particle experience would he have had to have 


been in. Is that credible? And how to pursue 


that. 


DR. MAURO: I understand what you’re saying, 


and I wouldn’t disagree. But if I recall, and 


it’s been awhile since I read that procedure, 


the procedure itself. And I don’t recall 


there being any guidance along those lines. 


That is what you’re effectively saying is, 


listen, if this guy’s job and job location and 


the history of that particular site, this type 


of thing just didn’t happen very often or 


happen at all. I can understand that 


argument. But I don’t believe that’s 


contained in the text. 


MR. HINNEFELD: No, I don’t believe there’s 


any. You’re right. 


DR. MAURO: It might be worthwhile putting 


some text to point the dose reconstructor in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

226 

that direction. Because just to simply say 


that, well, the scanner, the frisker didn’t 


see it, by definition it’s not a problem. I 


like the idea -- I’m just speaking now as one 


of the reviewers, I like the idea that, well, 


let’s go one step further. 


Beside the frisking, let’s take a look 


at the records of the workers that work in 


that area, the potential for airborne 


particulates causing localized skin 


contamination, and put that to bed also. That 


would be, I would see that as a claimant 


favorable strategy for dealing with this. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I guess I can kind of see 


the point. I think there would be certain 


cases where there’s no evidence of skin 


contamination. The person worked in an area 


where it was feasible, and there’s no evidence 


of a skin contamination. A person gets skin 


cancer. Is that sufficient evidence to say 


that, well, there’s a causal relationship 


here? 


MR. ELLIOTT: It goes to professional 


judgment, I think. The dose reconstructor’s 


working through the claim, and it’s a skin 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

227 

cancer claim. And it comes down to, well, I 


can reconstruct the dose and will produce a 


POC of 48 percent, but I can’t get it over. 


Maybe I need to look at this harder and is 


there hot particles involved. Is the process, 


does it have hot particles related to it? I 


just assume they would pick that up and follow 


that thread. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think there’s some 


discussion for us to pursue with the ORAU dose 


reconstructors who are perhaps more expert on 


this if you do it a lot. So, I mean, we can 


pursue that some more and look at the 


suggestions in the report and see what in 


there might lend itself. I mean, we may be 


getting into a situation where we can’t 


reconstruct the skin dose. 


DR. NETON: How do you prove a negative? 


It’s the same old issue. 


DR. MAURO: This is really a question that ­

-


DR. ZIEMER: I’d like to ask, I don’t 


understand the SC&A finding, that it’s a 


yes/no basis. What does that mean? Because 


if someone is working with a beta emitter, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

228 

let’s say it’s P-32, you’re going to monitor 


him with a film badge, and you’re going to 


get, you can get the skin dose values, and 


usually you’re doing extremity measurements on 


many beta emitters anyway, so you have an 


extra sort of check on that. 


If they’re getting hot particles, if 


you can’t pick it up with a scan, I mean, hot 


particles are exactly what they’re talking 


about. They are not uniform contamination. 


Usually a tiny particle, and it’s very hot, 


and it’s very easy to detect normally and set 


off a monitor. So then the problem on hot 


particles has been for those who have found 


them on their skin they worked with them on 


there all day. 


How do you figure out dose for that? 


What is that? A concept of dose average is 


stuff over sort of big areas, and the 


arguments on hot particles has been how do you 


figure out the dose? Usually you know there’s 


been hot particles. 


I mean, there are very few cases where 


people haven’t known, they just don’t know how 


to go about calculating the dose from that in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

229 

a way that’s meaningful. If you got skin 


cancer from the hot particle, and the particle 


is here, you better not get skin cancer 


somewhere else and attribute it to that 


particle. But anyway, that’s beside the 


point, but what does it mean about the yes/no 


business? 


DR. MAURO: The yes/no means if you get a 


positive reading on your film badge or beta 


emitters, well, that’s a yes, and it’s 


unambiguous, and the answer yes. This person 


was exposed to a beta exposure. But when you 


get less than a detectable level on your film 


badge, that doesn’t mean that there may have 


been parts of your body, either localized or ­

-


DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I see what you’re saying. 


And that per se doesn’t rule out hot 


particles. 


DR. MAURO: Right, so in other words when 


you --


DR. ZIEMER: So the hot particle issue 


usually is being detected in other ways. 


DR. MAURO: It’s more than, in other words 


basically, it’s possible to get a localized 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

230 

exposure to a portion of the body from a beta 


emitter whether it’s from a hot particle or 


just a source that might be close to a part of 


your body and still get a negative reading on 


their film badge. And so when you get a no, 


when you get no, zero, for a beta exposure, it 


doesn’t, there’s not very convincing that 


means you didn’t get any beta exposure. I 


guess that was the point I’m really making. 


DR. ZIEMER: But for it to be significant, 


you’ve got to be able to get by scanners. 


DR. MAURO: Well, we ran --


DR. ZIEMER: Not everybody scans. 


DR. MAURO: Once you, for example, when you 


postulate a certain particle size specific 


activity of a beta emitter. We ran a VARSKIN. 


We could run MCNP. You could predict what the 


localized dose is, the tissue beneath the 


particle. So I mean, this could be done. 


Our concern with this procedure, I 


guess, goes to how do you deal with the fact 


that some people may have gotten some hot 


particles that were not detected, and later on 


they come down with a skin cancer. And quite 


frankly, I mean, whether or not it’s adequate 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

231 

to argue, well, we never saw it on the frisker 


so therefore, it’s not an issue. 


If that’s satisfactory to the working 


group, that’s fine. But to me I would say it 


really goes to the question of is it 


commonplace for a person to miss something on 


the scanning process? Is it possible? Is 


that a plausible scenario? 


DR. ZIEMER: I think it is for an 


individual, but places that have had hot 


particles it’s usually showing up in the 


system. It’s showing up in the laundry 


system. It’s showing up amongst their 


coworkers. So I think you would have to look 


at the total system on that. 


DR. MAURO: I think that may be all we’re, 


maybe that’s what needs to be said in the 


procedure. That is that there’s a --


DR. ZIEMER: So if someone gets skin cancer, 


you sort of ask the question are they working 


an area where that could have been a 


consideration. I see what you’re saying. 


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): Well, but that’s 


why the OTIB has a section on non-uniform 


exposure of the skin. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

232 

DR. NETON: Isn’t that really more --


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): And it summarizes 


much of what Dr. Ziemer just said. 


DR. NETON: In terms of how you calculate 


the dose though, right? 


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): Correct. And in 


addition, the gentleman was speaking to the 


professional judgment. That’s what occurs as 


the DRs go through it, and Scott can attest to 


that. 


MS. MUNN: So is there an action here? 


MR. ELLIOTT: I think we ought to look at 


our language in the guidance that we give, 


maybe be a little more clearer or a little bit 


more proscriptive in what happens if the 


claimant, the energy employee, was in a 


process or an operation, perhaps had a hot 


particle circumstance. 


MS. MUNN: Look at it and report back to us. 

 DR. WADE: This 17 three? 

MS. MUNN: Seventeen three, correct. 

DR. MAURO: Plus four and five I believe, 

too. 

MS. MUNN: Does NIOSH agree to that? Four 

and five? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

233 

MR. HINNEFELD: They’re all the same. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, they’re all related. 


MS. MUNN: All right. Six, we get to 


dosimetry recorded LODs. 


MR. HINNEFELD: This speaks about adjustment 


of limited detection based on the type of 


radiation this badge was exposed to and its 


reaction to that, and how was it calibrated 


versus what it was exposed to. Is that where 


we’re going here? I’m having trouble from the 


page, from page 77 of the report as to where 


exactly where this finding appears on here. 


DR. MAURO: I am at a bit of a loss to help 


out here. I see that you have responded, an 


adjustment to the LOD is needed, but 


technically, it isn’t stated in this section. 


So apparently --


MR. ELLIOTT: So we’ve accepted your 


comment? 


DR. NETON: No, I think we did an 


adjustment. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Oh, we’ve already done an 


adjustment. 


DR. MAURO: So you’re saying it has been 


done? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

234 

DR. NETON: Well, that’s the way I read this 


is apparently they’re saying that the LOD 


should be used, and it reads to me that some 


adjustment has been made to compensate for the 


over response of the dosimeter’s beta 


particles. I can’t be sure of that, but 


that’s --


MR. HINNEFELD: I think it’s the old ^ 


approach. 


MS. MUNN: Are we still talking about beta 


particles here? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we’re talking about 


shallow dose measuring which may be beta 


particles or may be low energy photons. And 


so the question relates in the TIB there is a 


discussion about how much, if you’re under 30 


keV photon dose, and you’re using film 


calibrated with, say, a higher energy photon, 


the low energy photon, the fact the film would 


over-respond a lot to the low energy photon. 


And so I think what the TIB contains 


is a sort of a reminder to that effect is that 


when you’re using, it may not be acceptable to 


use an LOD at face value depending upon how it 


was calibrated, and what it was exposed to. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

235 

And there may be some need to adjust an LOD 


when you’re assigning missed dose LOD over two 


missed dose. So I think that’s the statement 


that this is addressing. And I’m not exactly 


sure though what, well, yeah, I guess the 


finding is that says use the LOD. 


And I think our response is it’s 


important before you just use the LOD, you 


know, how was that LOD arrived at based on the 


calibration badge, and too, what was the ^ of 


the badge exposed in the field. So it doesn’t 


necessarily automatically translate the 


published LOD would be the correct one to use. 


So that’s what our response is. 


DR. ZIEMER: Which way do you correct it? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, if the LOD for the 


badge were --


DR. ZIEMER: Let’s say it’s a certain amount 


of blackening, and if that’s done by betas, 


that certain amount of blackening actually 


represents a lower dose than had it been 


gammas. 


DR. NETON: Because this is for a low energy 


photon. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

236 

MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the same way. 


DR. ZIEMER: Or a lower energy photon. 


MR. HINNEFELD: If you have a badge --


DR. ZIEMER: Your LOD is really a certain 


amount of darkening. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, and if it was 


calibrated, and the LOD was determined based 


on an exposure to, say, a cesium source, then 


that amount of darkening, if you were exposed 


to a low energy photon, you would have a much 


smaller dose so it would be an adjustment 


downward, yes. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. 


And they seem to be saying use the actual LOD 


because it’s more claimant favorable. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it would be. 


DR. ZIEMER: It looks to me like if you 


assigned the higher dose --


DR. NETON: The badge would over-respond at 


low energies, right? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: So the dose would be --


DR. ZIEMER: No, it’s the other way. If it 


over-responds, it takes less dose to give you 


that response. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

237 

DR. NETON: Right, so the measured dose 


would be higher. 


DR. ZIEMER: No, they’re assigning an LOD. 


MR. HINNEFELD: What they’re saying, what 


apparently is being done here is a 


recommendation to adjust the LOD downward 


because it was calibrated to a high energy 


photon, but it was exposed to a low energy 


photon. So the LOD should be adjusted 


downward from the one that was calculated to 


the high energy photon. That appears to be 


what is being said. 


^: That is correct. 


DR. ZIEMER: You’re assigning less dose, so 


they seem to be saying assign the LOD because 


you will be assigning a higher dose. I guess 


that’s what they’re saying. And you’re 


saying, well, they’re assigning the correct 


amount. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Our view is that we’re 


trying to assign the correct missed dose. 


DR. MAURO: It sounds like I can’t answer 


this, whether or not, it sounds like there is 


a reasonable answer, response to the concern 


here. The ball’s in our park to make sure 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 -- 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

238 

that this answer is satisfactory. I can’t 


speak to it off the top of my head. 


DR. ZIEMER: I’m trying to understand 


whether your recommendation is just in order 


to be more claimant favorable as opposed to a 


technical reason. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I have to say this is a 


bit of a brain teaser because of the low 


limits of detection, calibrated with a higher 


energy photon. And the question is, and right 


now you have an adjustment factor to increase 


DR. NETON: No, you reduce the LOD. The 


efficiency of the measurement is much greater 


for lower energy photons. 


DR. ZIEMER: It doesn’t take as much dose to 


get that minimum detection. 


DR. NETON: ^ that predominates is just a 


huge absorption. 


MS. MUNN: So you’ll have the action to come 


back to us on 06, 06. 


DR. MAURO: We have the action. 


MS. MUNN: Finding seven. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Finding seven has to do with 


what thickness of clothing is likely to cover 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

239 

a particular target. Shallow dose and why use 


four millimeters. The author measured his 


clothing using a micrometer and arrived at 


four millimeters. So it’s an actual 


measurement of the clothing being worn. He 


made sure he did this at home, not in the 


workplace. So it’s an actual measurement of 


the clothing. 


MS. MUNN: Is that acceptable, SC&A? 


DR. ZIEMER: Do we need to specify whether 


it was Jockeys or Hanes? 


MS. MUNN: And was the t-shirt tucked in or 


out? 


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): It was Hanes and 


Levis. 


DR. ZIEMER: Levis are too thick. 


MS. MUNN: Well, no, it sounds likely from 


most sites that I’m familiar with. 


Is that acceptable, John? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Finding number eight. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, this goes again to the fact 


that in the case of ^, well, I guess it goes 


to this business of where the organ of concern 


is relative to where the film badge is, and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

240 

whether it’s beta or photon there is this 


issue. And this has come up before. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think that that has to be, 


I mean, that’s something that can’t be 


ignored, you know, depending on where is the 


cancer, and where was the badge particularly 


in a beta dose environment. And there have 


been some doses, sort of a badge geometry 


thing. We’ve made some site specific 


adjustments in some cases or case specific 


adjustments in some cases. So it’s in there. 


This OTIB may not address it in detail, or it 


may in fact. I’m not even sure. It’s 


certainly something that’s considered in dose 


reconstruction. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I thought you all were going 


to come up with a, some type of an overall 


statement. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that was about hot 


particles. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Oh, was that just for hot 


particles? 


DR. NETON: No, it was also for photon 


exposures, remember? 


MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

241 

DR. NETON: We were going to take the 


Mallinckrodt experience and make a generic. 


That was not intended to address, at least in 


my mind, non-uniform beta exposures. A 


classic example was a picture of a guy at 


Fernald sleeping on the ^. I’m not saying it 


shouldn’t be done, but it wasn’t going to be 


^. 


DR. MAURO: I know that non-uniform exposure 


is addressed in other OTIBs. I’ve seen that. 


Now you say does this particular guideline 


cross-reference it or is it silent on this 


issue? 


DR. NETON: It’s silent. 


DR. MAURO: It’s silent. Okay, I guess 


that’s the issue. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it’s got a section 


that says non-uniform exposure to skin. 


DR. NETON: What I was speaking of it’s not 


cross-referenced to the non-uniform documents 


that we have, and possibly it should. 


DR. MAURO: We run into this often except 


for, you know, we’re reviewing the particular 


document, and if we see it’s silent on an 


issue, the question becomes should it cross­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

242 

reference other places where that issue is 


more thoroughly addressed. 


Or should we assume that, especially 


if we’re aware that the issue is addressed 


some place else, even though it’s silent in 


the particular procedure, but we know because 


we’ve been looking at all this stuff that we 


know is addressed somewhere else, is it 


reasonable to assume that the dose 


reconstructor is aware of that and will use it 


accordingly? Or should the policy be no, 


there should be some explicit statement in 


here in the section on non-uniform exposure to 


refer the dose reconstructor to this other 


guidance that would help him deal with that 


issue? That’s really the question that --


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, it’s a reasonable 


question, I guess. We consult with dose 


reconstructors and see whether or not that 


kind of a statement in here would be helpful 


in that application. To me, I mean, basically 


it seems like it would be helpful in actuality 


if the dose reconstructor is using mainly 


tools for dose reconstruction and can choose 


various options and tools, then the words in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

243 

this OTIB would be even less important. 


MR. ELLIOTT: It could be restraining, too. 


DR. MAURO: This is a difficult question 


because your OTIBs, your procedures, your 


site, I mean, is a living process where you’re 


adding, you’re refining and building this 


collection of guidelines. Is it incumbent to 


make sure that all guidelines are 


appropriately cross-referenced to all other 


guidelines as appropriate a burden that would 


be quite burdensome to be able to do that? 


Or is it reasonable to say, listen, we 


realize that every, you know, there is a need 


to, the dose reconstructor has to be cognizant 


of the full sweep of guidance available to him 


and the very fact that this particular 


guidance, OTIB-0017, doesn’t cross-reference 


anything to other documents that might be 


useful, that’s not a deficiency. And I think 


that’s an important question I believe for the 


working group or the Board to judge. 


I mean, all we’re doing is pointing 


out that in this particular case, dealing with 


non-uniform exposures and how to best deal 


with that is not described at a level of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

244 

detail that stands alone. And the question 


becomes is it really a policy question. 


MS. MUNN: It is a policy question. 


DR. MAURO: It is, yes. 


MS. MUNN: To the best of my knowledge, we 


haven’t addressed it very fully. It’s always 


an issue of efficiency as well as a question 


of completeness to be able to identify that 


whoever is doing the work is fully aware of 


all of the items that need to be referenced, 


whether they are specifically referenced or 


not. So it’s, has NIOSH discussed this 


internally with regard to how best to address 


the cross-referencing issue? 


DR. NETON: I don’t think we have. I mean, 


clearly we’re comfortable with the way it’s 


organized now which is sort of a tier-down 


approach. I would suggest that again, this is 


an issue where the proof is in the dose 


reconstructions. Now, are there instances 


where we have site-specific TIBs that were 


ignored because the generic guidance was 


applied and ignore a more specific approach 


that was outlined for geometry or a site? So 


I think, I agree with John. It would be 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

245 

cumbersome and burdensome to have to go back 


and continue to cross-reference all of the 


procedures against each other. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I’d say in practice we rely 


on the training of the dose reconstructors 


when the documents are generated, and there’s 


a training determination that is training 


needed in the case of the document revision 


came out. 


And so the training of the dose 


reconstructors as well as their peer reviewers 


and the leadership of the dose reconstruction 


team leaders, you know, we kind of rely on 


that system as opposed to this interlocking 


referencing system, you know, referring back 


and forth to various technical documents. 


It’s a relatively dynamic and popping up all 


the time. 


So that’s what we’re doing now, and if 


it’s, and I think like Jim said, if it shows 


on dose reconstructions that people are 


missing instructions, well then maybe what 


we’re doing isn’t good enough. But in a 


procedure review it’s hard to determine 


exactly which is better. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

246 

MR. ELLIOTT: I think the proof of that 


pudding is we haven’t seen it come out in our 


technical peer reviews. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we would not know what 


was found in ORAU’s technical peer review. 


DR. NETON: You mean NIOSH. 


MR. ELLIOTT: You mean in our --


MR. HINNEFELD: In our reviews. I don’t 


know that we have. I hesitate to sit here and 


say that I know for sure what the suite of our 


comments have been on dose reconstruction 


reviews. What the ^. 


MS. MUNN: The real question then becomes 


what can we do to reassure this group right 


here that the training is adequate enough that 


we don’t have to worry about the individual 


dose reconstructor being fully aware of all of 


the material that’s necessary and available to 


them to make these --


MR. ELLIOTT: Again, it goes back to what 


Jim said. It’s in the evaluation completed 


dose reconstructions. 


DR. NETON: It’s certainly a big part of it 


in my mind. 


MR. ELLIOTT: I mean we could go back and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

247 

talk to our ORAU dose reconstructors and get a 


sense from them as to how they feel toward 


this. I mean, are they comfortable with the 


status quo or do they see that this might be a 


benefit given the increasing suite of tools 


that are being used. I don’t know. That’s 


one thing we could do, I guess. 


DR. NETON: I think one thing we haven’t 


talked about is the workbooks which tend to 


automate a fair amount of these approaches 


when you’re doing certain, when new things 


come online, they are incorporated into 


workbooks to a very large extent which takes 


some of the burden --


MR. ELLIOTT: Scott or Matt, do you have a 


gut sense of what the reaction would be from 


the dose reconstruction teams? 


MR. SIEBERT: Personally, I haven’t heard it 


being an issue that people are saying I can’t 


keep up with everything going on. I mean, 


there’s always a lot going on, but I haven’t 


heard general tendencies from the group 


saying, and we haven’t, as far as I know and 


like Stu said, you can’t run the breadth of 


the comments, but I don’t, I haven’t noticed a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

248 

trend of those types of comments coming back. 


MR. FARVER: Is there a training requirement 


for an OTIB? 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, there’s training 


required. 


MR. FARVER: Then I assume there’s a 


training record that shows that the 


dosimetrist was trained. 


MR. SIEBERT: Yeah, you can always go back 


and look at the training record. 


MR. FARVER: I’d say as long as they’d been 


trained for the OTIBs that apply to their 


site, that would be a verification. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Also, each one of your, each 


procedure you do, you don’t have a checklist 


that you check off when you’re through that 


says I did this. I did this. I did this. I 


did this. 


MR. SIEBERT: There’s a peer review 


checklist to make sure everything was covered. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, and it’s worked very well 


and had a high level of performance and 


accuracy. I guess some of us have undoubtedly 


relied on the knowledge that the workbooks 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

249 

that have been produced would incorporate all 


of the information that any dose reconstructor 


would need. I can’t get clear in my mind what 


we would need to do or what we could do that 


would answer the direct question as to whether 


we need to pursue the possibility of a cross-


referencing policy. It seems to be working 


all right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, I think you’ve got a 


process. It seems to be working. I think we 


have something we don’t need to fix if we 


don’t have a problem. 


DR. MAURO: It seems that beta exposure, 


skin cancer, is extremely prevalent, and a 


very difficult thing to reconstruct. That’s 


the sense I get from reading the procedures, 


my own knowledge of the subject. And in order 


to make sure that a person that is a claimant 


with a skin cancer, especially since skin 


cancer isn’t covered by, for example, SECs, 


this is in my mind a particularly important 


assurance that if there are holes in the 


process whereby you could miss some doses to 


the skin from either calibration of the 


dosimeters from hot particles, localized 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

250 

irradiation of the skin, that needs to be rock 


solid because it’s one of the tougher ones. 


It’s like neutron dosimetry. It’s as 


difficult as that, making sure that you 


haven’t missed important doses. I guess 


that’s, and all you’re really looking at now 


in one after the other after the other is Dr. 


Hunt’s experience in struggling with doing 


dosimetry for ^. That his life’s experience 


has been dealing with that issue. So what 


you’re looking at is that life’s experience. 


MS. MUNN: But, John, we’re back here to the 


geometry issue on this particular one --


DR. ZIEMER: Are we still on eight? 


MS. MUNN: We’re still on eight, and we’re 


still talking about geometry. 


DR. ZIEMER: Eight doesn’t seem to be 


talking about skin cancer, does it? 


MS. MUNN: No, it’s geometry. 


DR. ZIEMER: It’s talking about breast 


cancer and testicular and geometry correction 


factors, and --


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): I can interject a 


little bit on this if you like. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Go ahead, Matt. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

251 

MR. SMITH (by Telephone): In this section 


there was prepared correction factors to deal 


with different beta energies and exposure to 


breast, penis and testicles. So what would 


happen here is actually some modeling. So 


that’s why we state regarding the geometry 


issue isn’t really relevant here because this 


is a table that was put together based on some 


modeling -- I believe these are VARSKIN 3 --


just to come up with some correction factors. 


So it was an empirical calculation that was 


going on. 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, that’s what I was 


wondering is that --


DR. NETON: Well, that’s missing the point 


of the comment though. I think the comment is 


related to the geometry issue I believe which 


is film badge which is located near the breast 


would actually record the dose more accurately 


than if the testes were exposed, 


notwithstanding the fact that there are 


different depths of energy which one needs to 


calculate that which is the modeling that Matt 


referred to. But I think my take on his 


comment was that it’s a geometry comment, not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

252 

an energy ^. 


DR. ZIEMER: But that’s always the case --


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): Could be and, you 


know, again, the reference is given to check 


on page seven where geometry is discussed in 


the OTIB. 


DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that’s what we were 


trying to find here, whether that had to do 


with the --


MR. SMITH (by Telephone): In the OTIB 


itself there is a section on exposure 


geometry. In the way this book’s put together 


there are not numbers in front of each 


subsection. You’ll find it on page seven. 


MS. MUNN: But somehow we’ve gotten away 


from the issue of this particular finding and 


have gotten into the policy realm with whether 


or not we should be cross-referencing items. 


Let’s --


DR. ZIEMER: We still need to know whether 


does the OTIB speak to the geometry between 


the badge and the organ of interest? I mean 


you always have that issue for everything. Is 


that what the comment is? It’s --


DR. MAURO: Yes, the comment goes toward 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

253 

that. The question is is there adequate 


guidance in this particular OTIB --


DR. ZIEMER: There is an exposure geometry 


statement in this. 


MR. HINNEFELD: There’s a paragraph that 


just says you have to worry about this. 


DR. MAURO: And I know there are other 


documents, and it gets back to there are other 


documents, which for example, I know there’s 


one that has two between if you’re working at 


the glove box, between the ^ and let’s say the 


waste. So there’s some specific guidance 

there. 

Now in this case the question becomes 

the fact that this problem exists, and you 


alert the dose reconstructor to the fact that 


this problem exists, is that sufficient. 


Okay, he’s aware of it, do you give him any 


further guidance or do you leave it up to his 


own skills in order to make the appropriate 


corrections and deal with this problem? 


MS. MUNN: And what we were saying earlier I 


believe is that to this point training and 


workbook accessibility has taken care of that 


issue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

254 

MR. HINNEFELD: And I believe, again, dose 


reconstructors don’t work by themselves. You 


know, they have a team leader. They work on a 


team that’s familiar with the site. They 


discuss what are the things we run into, and 


what are the approaches to solve those. So 


those things are, I believe, are addressed so 


it’s addressed in the system. 


DR. ZIEMER: I’m looking at this thing now, 


and there is some guidance in here as to when 


no correction should be made, and when 


correction should be made. So I, it appears 


to me that there is a sort of generic guidance 


already there. Obviously, it has to look at 


the particular --


MR. HINNEFELD: It’s essentially a warning 


to figure it out. Now remember every, a dose 


reconstructor can always put a case on a 


technical hold and say there is some research 


that needs to be done. Actually, the 


reconstructor would probably be able to do it 


himself, but with the team leader, that’s 


probably what happens. Say look, there’s some 


research here that we need to get in order to 


do this case. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

255 

And they’ll put it on a technical hold 


until that research and approach is completed. 


So a dose reconstructor doesn’t have to charge 


off and invent something on his own and 


wouldn’t. He would consult with the, if he 


doesn’t know the approach. If he doesn’t know 


what we’re doing in this case, he would 


consult with his team leader or the peer 


reviewers and the principal external 


dosimetrist to say, okay, what are my options 


here because the badge reading’s not good 


enough. 


So there are ways to do that, but I 


don’t know that we can specify them here 


because they’re so case specific and the 


aspects of the site enter into it as well. 


But this is essentially an admonition. The 


fact that, yes, there is not specific guidance 


here, but it’s an admonition that prevents a 


dose reconstructor from just saying the badge 


said this so that’s what I’m using. 


So it’s sort of a, to me it’s a help 


to say, okay, don’t do it wrong. So it may 


not say, essentially it doesn’t say, but 


essentially it says you may have to get help 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

256 

to do it right, but don’t do it wrong. 


DR. MAURO: When these circumstances arise 


as you just described, and then let’s say we 


can go back to a case, a real case, and go 


into his record and the rationale for the 


assumptions made, I know when I look into some 


of these dose reconstructions -- and you have 


a lot more than I have -- sometimes it’s not 


apparent of the rationale behind what was 


done. And it is a bit of a struggle I know on 


our end to, and there may be good reason. 


As a person that’s done a lot of the, 


that’s ^ some skin dose reconstructions, is it 


in your experience -- or, Hans, on line --


that when you go back and look into the 


records that the rationale behind the 


assumptions made for dealing with questions 


like this, are they transparent to that? Is 


it self evident? Oh, yeah, they did take this 


into consideration, and this is what they did 


to factor in that particular issue. You’re 


saying in the end the dose reconstruction’s 


done correctly. 


MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yeah, I believe 


probably they are. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

257 

MR. FARVER: Well, when they do the skin 


doses that I remember looking at you have your 


OTIB which then refers you where you go to the 


more or less a technical basis document, and 


that will provide you with more specific 


information. Like you said our hardest part 


is just going backwards and trying to figure 


out where they got it. It’s not that they got 


it wrong. It’s where did they get it. But, 


yes, a lot of times it does come from multiple 


places. 


MR. HINNEFELD: I think we’ve struggled with 


this from the start is how fully can we 


explain the dose reconstruction. And we’ve 


not given up on the idea that a different dose 


reconstruction format, you know, with a 


section for the claimant, that the claimant 


had a hope of reading, and a section for a 


technical reviewer. We’ve not given up on 


that. It’s been held in abeyance for money 


reasons, but it’s costly. 


It’s a costly thing to do. But it’s 


kind of part of that is that how much do you 


explain in the dose reconstruction report 


without just completely intimidating the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 -- 

22 

23 

24 

25 

258 

claimant into saying, well, they’re just 


trying to, you know, they’re just messing with 


me. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, I’m not saying it should be 


in the dose reconstruction report. 


MR. HINNEFELD: So you think supporting? 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I’m saying that --


MR. HINNEFELD: Supporting information. 


DR. MAURO: Yeah, when either SC&A in doing 


its audits or even your own technical people 


doing their independent reviews, there should 


be a story told where the rationale for the 


judgments that are made in accordance with 


your procedure. 


DR. NETON: That kind of defeats the whole 


purpose of having procedures though. If 


you’re doing it per procedures that are out 


there for the world to see and only technical 


people can probably understand them, then once 


you start explaining what the procedures mean 


DR. MAURO: No, no, I’m saying that I agree 


with you. I’m saying though that, okay, in 


this particular, for example, in a dose 


reconstruction for a person with a skin cancer 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

259 

whereby you’re following OTIB-0017, you get to 


the point where you have to take and say, yes, 


there could be a concern regarding localized 


exposure. There’s in my mind in the dose 


reconstruction record describing the 


assumptions that were made to deal with that 


issue, there should be something in there that 


says this is how I dealt with this issue, or I 


used this procedure. 


DR. NETON: More often than not what’s going 


to happen as Stu explained, there’s going to 


be a technical hold. There’ll be a panel 


convened to do a technical approach to a TIB 


issue. I just made a list here. We’ve done 


this, every time there’s a unique exposure 


geometry, the glove box TIB that was issued, 


overhead piping, contaminated plane 


geometries. 


These are things that come up that are 


solved technically by our staff, and then for 


the world to see we say, okay, well, this is 


how we handled it, and then the dose 


reconstruction would reference TIB whatever. 


MR. FARVER: And most of the time they do. 


Sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they do it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

260 

correctly and just forget to reference the 


TIB. 


DR. NETON: And that happens, but that’s a 


valid comment then if it’s not --


MS. MUNN: So finding 08 which is 


specifically about geometry, how do you find? 


DR. ZIEMER: Well, I just want to say that I 


think the NIOSH response is appropriate. 


MS. MUNN: I do, too. 


DR. ZIEMER: It references on page seven 


certain things that they are to do. It is 


somewhat generic, but it does address the 


geometry issue and I think for the nature of 


this OTIB it’s appropriate. That’s my 


opinion. 


MS. MUNN: I do as well. 


DR. MAURO: Well, I’m not --


MS. MUNN: Can SC&A accept that? 


DR. MAURO: This is a judgment call and what 


you’re saying is we have a pointer in there 


that just alerts, and what I’m hearing is that 


there’s a process in place that that pointer 


is sufficient to make sure that the dose 


reconstructor is alerted to this issue, and he 


knows what to do from there on because of his 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

261 

training. 


MR. HINNEFELD: And he can find out what to 


do. He has colleagues. He has supervisors. 


DR. MAURO: And that’s the answer. 


MS. MUNN: Now ladies and gentlemen, friends 


and colleagues, it has become what I 


anticipated the witching hour would be, and we 


are nowhere near where I had hoped we might 


be. We’re in the midst of one OTIB that I 


hoped we would complete, but we still have, 


we’re only halfway through it. What is your 


pleasure? Do you want to take a 15-minute 


break or do you want to stop where we are now? 


We have some housekeeping issues that 


we have to take care of before we walk out the 


door. My preference would be to stop what 


we’re doing at this juncture, make note of 


where we are, anticipate picking this up in 


December at our face-to-face meeting together 


with the additional items that we have. At 


this time review our action items, get out our 


calendars and make some date commitments for 


each other and call it a day. 


 DR. WADE: Who could argue with the wisdom 


of the Chair? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

262 

MS. MUNN: Do I hear any disagreement? 


 (no response) 


RECAP OF ACTION ITEMS
 

MS. MUNN: That being the case I have listed 


about 11 action items I think that Dr. Wade 


has been good enough to record them for me. 


 DR. WADE: Do you want me to read them? 

MS. MUNN: Yes, please do, briefly. 

 DR. WADE: Remember back to the morning. 

NIOSH will report summary PER data to the 


Board during regularly scheduled program 


updates. 


Next item, NIOSH will send revisions 


of OCAS OTIBs six, seven and eight to SC&A and 


the work group. 


NIOSH and SC&A will discuss OCAS OTIB0006 and -0007 to determine if they need to be 


reviewed as quote documents modified as a 


result of this review or as new documents. 


SC&A will review the modified OCAS 


OTIB-0008 and either six or seven if those 


documents are determined to be documents 


reviewed as the result of this review or await 


work group instruction if either six or seven 


are to be considered new documents. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

263 

The science issue on ingestion will be 


presented to the Board during the January 


meeting. 


SC&A will prepare a working matrix of 


their review of PROC-92 during this week. 


NIOSH will prepare a response to SC&A’s review 


of PROC-02 by mid-November, and the work group 


will discuss that situation at the December 


work group meeting. 


SC&A has recommended consistent 


terminology for matrix titles. That was on 


the board. SC&A will modify all previous 


products consistent with this new terminology. 


SC&A will report a trial matrix 


worksheet package including the definition of 


templates to be reviewed by the working group 


at the December meeting. 


A small group consisting of NIOSH, 


SC&A and work group members will meet to 


explore the issues of updating and 


implementing the matrix worksheet approach. 


SC&A, particularly Arjun, will review 


the materials to determine if PROC-90 


captures, is based upon OTIBs four, five and 


17 or if it contains new procedures and should 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

264 

be reviewed as a new document or whether the 


heading, PROC-90, can be used in the matrix to 


capture the findings of four, five and 17. 


Further technical clarification 


discussions will take place between NIOSH and 


SC&A on OTIB-0023, particularly this relates 


to Findings 23-1 through eight, and NIOSH and 


SC&A will report on those technical 


clarification discussions to the work group in 


December. 

MS. MUNN: I have November call. 

 DR. WADE: November call? 

MS. MUNN: That’s what I had originally. 

 DR. WADE: I don’t have a November call. 

MS. MUNN: We haven’t scheduled it yet. 

 DR. WADE: Okay, I will change that to 

November. 

NIOSH will reword its response to 


OTIB-0019, Finding OTIB-0019-1 to better 


reflect the actual procedure. 


SC&A will prepare a one-page workup on 


the OTIB-0012 findings to be presented to the 


work group for consideration. The work group 


will decide if the findings in OTIB-0012 


should be added to the matrix. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

265 

NIOSH will review the language 


relative to Findings 17, three, four and five 


and report to the work group. 


SC&A will review NIOSH’s response to 


Finding 17-06 and report to the work group. 


That’s all that I have. 


MS. MUNN: You have broken down into little 


pieces some of the larger ones that I had and 


with only one or two minor wording changes --


 DR. WADE: You, my lady, are a lumper. I am 

a splitter. 

MS. MUNN: Yes, there’s no question about 

that. If you would be good enough to get me a 


copy of that electronically, or I will take 


that one if you want me to. We’ll get that 


put together and out to everyone within the 


next few days. 


FUTURE DATES AND MEETINGS


 DR. WADE: Now we have the issue of dates 


and meetings. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, we do. The first date that 


I believe needs to be set -- let me get my 


calendar out -- is the one for the small group 


that’s going to talk about how to track which 


revision of the matrix that’s in hand at any 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

266 

given time. We were going to have, that will 


be a conference call, I guess, for members of 


this group that want to listen in, but I’d 


hope it would be a conference call of people 


like you and me and --


 MR. PRESLEY: Conference call or face-toface? 


MS. MUNN: Conference call. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That’s good. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: What date was being 


proposed? 


MS. MUNN: Well, we don’t have a date yet. 


We’re looking at, unfortunately, I can’t do 


that until toward the end of October. I’d 


like for that to take place much sooner than 


that but I can’t be a part of that discussion. 


If it’s not necessary for me to be on it then 


you folks could do that earlier. Otherwise, I 


would suggest November 1st? This is the small 


group call, and who all is going to be on 


that? John? Who from NIOSH? 


MR. HINNEFELD: I should be there. 


MS. MUNN: John, Stu, Bob, Wanda. 


Lew, do you need to be on that? 


 DR. WADE: No, because I don’t think it’s 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

267 

going to be a formal work group meeting. 


MS. MUNN: No, it isn’t. It’s just a how 


are we going to do this. 


 DR. WADE: I’d say it would be better if I 


wasn’t on it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We’ll talk about just the way 


that the form’s set up? 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, just the way the form’s set 


up. Maybe by that time we’ll already have a 


straw man to look at, think about. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Make darn sure whenever we set 


this, we’ve got something to look at at least 


three or four days prior to the phone call. 


 DR. WADE: So a call, no transcript of the 

call. 

MS. MUNN: No transcript, just working out 

how we’re going to track these new matrices 


that we’re --


 DR. WADE: Minutes kept of the call, brief 


findings of the call? 


John, can you organize the call? 


MS. MUNN: Brief meetings and organize the 


call, John. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, I’ll organize it, and if I 


could just get a list of the names at some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

268 

point whenever. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, well, it’s you, Stu, 


Presley, Munn. 


 DR. WADE: That was easy. 


MS. MUNN: Yes, it was so far. How about 


2:00 p.m. eastern time? 	 Okay? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: Now the next date that we need to 


set is the full work group’s working call. 


Either the following week or the week of the 


11th, 12th in November. What is the 


availability of the people sitting around this 


table right now? Because they’re the key 


people. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Which one did you say? The 


week of the 11th? 


MS. MUNN: Either the week of the 4th or the 


week of the 11th . 


DR. NETON: I’m out most of the week of the 


11th, but that shouldn’t be the deciding 


factor. 


MS. MUNN: Okay, there’s no reason why we 


shouldn’t. I’m looking at Thursday, the 8th . 


Is that a reasonable date? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I can be there up until three 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 -- 

23 

24 

25 

269 

o’clock that day. After that I have a 


planning commission meeting. 


MS. MUNN: What if we backed off to 


Wednesday, the 7th? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


MS. MUNN: Wednesday, the 7th? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Is this going to be an all day 


conference call? 


MS. MUNN: It will probably be at least four 


or five hours. 


DR. MAURO: This is a conference call and 


not face-to-face? 


MS. MUNN: Conference call, not face-toface. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: What’s the agenda of that 


call would be? I wonder would I need to be on 


it. I don’t think I’m available on the 7th . 


MS. MUNN: I’ll have to go back through the 


action items to identify what we said we would 


definitely cover on the 7th . 


DR. MAURO: I assume it’s a continuation of 


MS. MUNN: It’s a continuation of that. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: I don’t think I need to be 


on this. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

270

 MR. PRESLEY: We’ll start at nine, right? 


MS. MUNN: Yep, we’ll start at nine, and 


we’ll have several items from our action list 


generated today. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We’ll start on OTIB-0009. Is 


that correct? 


MS. MUNN: We will start on action item, 


Finding number nine, OTIB-0017. 


 DR. WADE: So 9:00 a.m. to mercifully four? 

MS. MUNN: Mercifully. 

 DR. WADE: But this will be a formal meeting 

of the work group, so we’ll set it up and Ray 


will be with us telephonically, November 7th , 


9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern whatever. 


MS. MUNN: No, not 9:00 a.m. I’m sorry. 


 MR. PRESLEY: You’re not going to get up at 


six o’clock and start this thing? 


MS. MUNN: No. 


 DR. WADE: Eleven. 


MS. MUNN: Eleven’s all right with me. 


 DR. WADE: Eleven to five eastern time. 


MS. MUNN: And then we come to December and 


our next face-to-face which I propose to be 


Tuesday, the 11th . 


 MR. PRESLEY: This is going to be a face-to­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

271 

face in Cincinnati? 


MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: That doesn’t work for me I hate 


to say; the 12th does. 


MS. MUNN: The 12th, okay. 


DR. ZIEMER: I’m out the 12th through the 


14th
 . 


MS. MUNN: Okay, that doesn’t work. And if 


we do the 10th, the only person really, if we 


start late enough. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I can get to this one. 


 DR. WADE: No, that’s good. Either I’ll 


make arrangements or Christine will be here. 


DR. BRANCHE: Both of us have a conference 


on the 11th, but we can make arrangements. 


 DR. WADE: One of us will have to be one 


place or the other. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The 10th all right? 


MS. MUNN: The 10th is okay with me. 


 MR. PRESLEY: The 10th’s fine with me. 


MS. MUNN: I can fly, it won’t be the first 


time I’ve flown on Sunday. 


 DR. WADE: Well, not on Sunday. Don’t worry 


about me. My conflict is the 10th and 11th , so 


let’s do the 11th . 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

272 

DR. MAURO: Have we got a start time? 


 DR. WADE: And the city. 


MS. MUNN: Since we’re, well, let’s do it in 


Cincinnati. It’s always easier for everybody 


else to get there, and it’s okay with me to 


get there. Start time 9:30. 


DR. MAKHIJANI: You said the 11th? 


 DR. WADE: December 11th . 


MS. MUNN: December 11th . 


 DR. WADE: Nine-thirty a.m., Cincinnati, 


hotel to be named. 


MS. MUNN: Hopefully, the Marriott. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, hopefully the Marriott. 


It works like a million dollars. They come 


right over at the airport and pick us up. 


MS. MUNN: All right, is there anything 


crucial left on our plate that we can’t 


postpone until the phone call or our meeting? 


 (no response) 


MS. MUNN: If not, this meeting is 


adjourned. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, Madam Chairman, 


wonderfully done. 


(Whereupon, the working group meeting was 


adjourned at 5:20 p.m.) 

______________________________ 

273 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of Oct. 2, 2007; 


and it is a true and accurate transcript of the 


testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


14th day of March, 2008. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102